Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:

Though daytime temperature reaches 70+, the snow
remains cool, and the moguls and slush powders
are very skiable/turnable after the snow is
softened around midday.

"Slush powders"? Pray tell, what is that?

The spring powder/snow before it turns into the corn snow?

I see we're a loose constructionist with the concept of
"powder."

Yup, that's how Kirkwood locals call it, because it is
left-over "powder," and it is skied just like "wet
powder"/"sierra cements."

What do you mean by "powder" again?

By "powder" I mean light, dry, fluffy snow, hopefully with
a water content of not much more than 10%.

You go by the numbers,

Right, I can see that it definitely wasn't you that stole
Mary's rsa players card.

We can argue about
what the upper level of snow water content qualifies as
powder, but let's first agree that all fresh snow is not
powder. Powder snow is dry, there is no "wet powder," and
"sierra cement" is NOT powder.

and I go by perception; when it looks like powder, feels
like powder (by the feet), and is skied like powder, yup,
I'll call it powder too, slush or not.

Here's my perception - if it is slush, then it doesn't looks
like powder, or feel like powder, and you don't ski it like
powder, so you don't call it powder.

In your partitioned mind, maybe, what if it is less than slush? What do
you call it?

You seem like the sort
of guy that would paint spots on a house cat and call it a leopard.

You seem like the sort of guy that would see a house cat with a weird
pattern and call it a leopard.


And FWIW, the Kirkwood locals I know don't use the word
"powder" to describe wet snow or "sierra cement"...ever,
no matter how fresh it is. "Slush powder" is a total oxymoron.

Oxymoron or not, the guy plunged down Cornice cheered and
shout "yahoo!The slush powder really turnable" didn't care a
bit, he have enjoyed the run.

How long have you been skiing in the US anyway? I'd
expect you to have a better grip on the nomenclature by now.

So you think that your narrowly fine tuned linguistics makes
you a better skier?

No, my skiing is what makes me a better skier, but we're not
skiing here are we? We're using WORDS to WRITE about skiing.
That's why he linguistics are crucial. Try to keep up, 'kay?

Maybe you should learn how to read words metaphorically, to broaden
your perception?


But I'd be happy if, instead of trying to write about skiing,
you'd just put up links to more of those videos of you trying
to ski.

Maybe when the photographer is ready.

They make me laugh.

It, the laugh, only reflects your shallowness.


IS


Bob