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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
lal_truckee wrote:
yunlong wrote: the guy plunged down Cornice cheered and shout "yahoo! The slush powder really turnable" I don't believe it. Someone might yell "Yahoo! the slush is fun!" but never "yahoo! The slush powder really turnable" Did you ever consider that Ichin might not be the only one who talks that way? How could there be just one? FWIW, I was not as offended by his particular oxymoron. To me, "slush powder" brings forth an instant image of the snow conditions. I didn't feel the need to take him literally. In fact, should the occasion arise, I just may use that term in the future. Only when flatboarding, of course... |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Lee wrote:
But "a locked-heel telemark binding" and "Lal's fat skis" are still oxymorons, right? Bob No, wrong. A "locked-heel telemark binding" would be a "technological advancement". ;-) Armin |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
VtSkier wrote:
yunlong wrote: VtSkier wrote: yunlong wrote: Bob Lee wrote: yunlong wrote: Bob Lee wrote: yunlong wrote: Bob Lee wrote: yunlong wrote: ..... JHC Yunlong, Haven't you learned a ___ thing? No, I don't normally stuff myself with useless/impractical information. Making up stuff here just doesn't cut it, and ragging on someone because of your inability to make him understand because of your use of words doesn't cut it either. What you don't know does not invalidate what you don't know. In a great and lengthy thread, I finally figured out what you were trying to say with what you were calling a particular type of "turn". I conceded that what you were describing was a good and valuable addition to a skier's "quiver" of turns available, and in fact that it was a move I use fairly frequently myself, even though I do it slightly differently from the way you described it. Nonetheless, my description of it was accurate, and it is functional as described? No, your description, meaning the words you used was NOT accurate and it was NOT clear, that' why it took so long to arrive at what you were trying to say. If it is not "accurate" (as I didn't describe to the final end) how do you know that you have "finally figured out what you were trying to say"? (what did I say?) "Oxymoronic?" I talking about what you call a slip or slipped turn in which you are increasing the radius of a turn by allowing the tips of the skis to slip away from the direction of the turn. So my words take you long time to reflect, nevertheless, you rag on me "inability to make [you] understand"? Much discussion is required before I can figure our what you are saying, Yes, that's because you read with your narrow-minded bias. reflection has nothing to do with it. Reflection gives you the "depth" of words, in our discussion, the meaning of my words are all terminated at the physical level; i.e. they are reflectable through your body sensation and its surroundings. I'm asking you to explain yourself in words that I understand. Get rid of that pompous self-righteous mentality may help you that, probably. And, Yes, I'm still ragging on you for not using words in the way they are understood by English speakers. That only reflects a little knowledge mentality. It is English, after all, that we are conversing in. It is world wide usenet, an international setting, and let's not forget, the subject is SKIING. Now here you've gone and written something in such a way that people may not understand because it's not common usage and then tried to back it up with the fiction that it IS common usage at Kirkwood. I got my impression from a guy with a Kirkwood season pass, where do you get your "common usage" of the term at Kirkwood? If I heard from someone what you heard, my irony meter would peg hard on the right side of the dial and I'd laugh like hell at this guy talking about "slush powder". I certainly wouldn't take him seriously and I would doubt very much if he was altogether serious. That only reflects a little knowledge mentality. On top of that, you have ragged on Bob for failing to see your meaning when it's your use of words that is keeping him from seeing your meaning. Maybe you guys should learn how to read words metaphorically, to broaden you guys perception? I understand metaphor in the context they are given. But lock of perception. It's simple really, you have invented an oxymoron by virtue of the fact that most English speaker's sense of powder is "fluffy" and slush is about as far from fluffy as it's possible to get. So you English speakers never use the term "'wet' powder"? No. Meaning? Complete sentence please. I skied with LAL back at the end of February. On Monday we had a foot of fresh snow. Lucky you, it wasn't supposed to be there (by the earlier weather reports). We called it powder and LAL later confirmed that the water content was about 8% which is within Bob's definition of "powder" being between 2% and 10% water. So what do you call those snows with water content of 12%? Actually it was 12%, my mistake which LAL corrected me on, and I would still call it powder. So, "Bob's definition" is incorrect? It was fluffy, at least for the first time through it. So the second time is no longer fluffy, what do you call that? On the previous Saturday, LAL took me over onto the sunny "backside" of the area. We found fairly new loose snow, somewhat cut up, but not bad. With the sun hitting it I would have guessed a water content of around 25%. It was very hard for me to turn in because it was sticky. Yup, that's maybe what the most sierra snow is right now; you need to know how to flatten the boards--yes, flatboarding--to ski it. Truly wet snow, or slush which is really mostly water (I'd say upwards of 75%) is actually easier for me to ski on than that sticky stuff. I actually like skiing what we here in the east call "slush bumps". But you think "slush bumps" is ok, but "slush powder" is oxymoron? Slush powder is clearly oxymoronic or maybe just plain moronic for the reasons I gave. Or just your reasoning oxymoronic? "slush"-snow wet, "powder"-snow dry, and "slush powder"-snow is somewhere in between, what so oxymoronic about? It's an oxymoron in the same way that "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence" are oxymorons. Huh?! The describe something with expressions which are polar opposites. However, a bump can be made with powder, ice or slush. Easily. It can even be ice in the troughs and powder on the tops. That's the way they were at Killington today. When the sun hits them the can be made of wetter snow or soft sticky snow. When the sun hits them for several days, it's 45 degrees and they get rained on, the bumps are most certainly made of slush. Powder cannot be made of slush. That's what you are asking me to accept. Maybe we ask too much of you. Moronic! It is. IS Oxymoronic? IS VtSkier |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote: Bob Lee wrote: yunlong wrote: [...] 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? It depends on what the snow is like - there are many accurate names for the many distinct types of snow that are found between slush and powder. "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. That's the best you can do? Not really, I didn't do anything, but reflecting your mentality/logic, Your descent into a state of nonsense is virtually complete. which forms the inner core of your perception. [...] 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? I can read metaphors like I can read the wind, You wish. but you didn't write any metaphors - you wrote an oxymoron. Metaphor, n. "a figure of speech in witch a term or phrase is applied to something to which is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance,"--the random house dictionary-- Given that "slush powder" is not comprehensible to you, but "slush" and "powder" are, so when "slush powder" is something new to you, how would you go about to find out the new thing? Look the resemblance. What resemblance can you comprehend is depended on whether or not you have the mental capacity to put "slush" + "powder" together. You *do* know that metaphors are not oxymorons, that there is a distinct difference? Your "oxymoron" is oxymoronic. And that's a good metaphor. We see that you've got a talent for at oxymorons, now try writing a metaphor (like I did above) and then tell us the difference between a metaphor and an oxymoron. As noted above. For extra points, see if you can use the term "chew-toy" in your metaphor. Example: I play with Ichin Shin like my dog plays with his favorite chew-toy. Like Bob Lee chewing words; like the dog, like the owner? 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. Hahahahaha! Shallow it is. IS Bob |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Armin wrote:
Bob Lee wrote: But "a locked-heel telemark binding" and "Lal's fat skis" are still oxymorons, right? Bob No, wrong. A "locked-heel telemark binding" would be a "technological advancement". ;-) Armin I'd call it a travesty! A crime against god and nature! Matt |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Kurt Knisely wrote:
Not everything needs "technological advancement" though like beer or Scotch...or telemark technique. -K Damn pinheads always getting technical on me! ;-) I was talking metaphorically of course, by using an oxymoron to demonstrate a semile regarding the metaphysical properties of flat-boarding on powderslush. If you didn't get it then it's because you came into it with a partitioned mind. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it! A. ;-) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
MattB wrote:
Armin wrote: Bob Lee wrote: But "a locked-heel telemark binding" and "Lal's fat skis" are still oxymorons, right? Bob No, wrong. A "locked-heel telemark binding" would be a "technological advancement". ;-) Armin I'd call it a travesty! A crime against god and nature! Matt Bless you Brother, Bless you. A. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
yunlong wrote:
VtSkier wrote: yunlong wrote: VtSkier wrote: yunlong wrote: Bob Lee wrote: yunlong wrote: Bob Lee wrote: yunlong wrote: Bob Lee wrote: yunlong wrote: ..... JHC Yunlong, Haven't you learned a ___ thing? No, I don't normally stuff myself with useless/impractical information. Hmm, I got a similar answer from one Horvath, aka Harry Weiner. This answer can be paraphrased as, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts." Making up stuff here just doesn't cut it, and ragging on someone because of your inability to make him understand because of your use of words doesn't cut it either. What you don't know does not invalidate what you don't know. In a great and lengthy thread, I finally figured out what you were trying to say with what you were calling a particular type of "turn". I conceded that what you were describing was a good and valuable addition to a skier's "quiver" of turns available, and in fact that it was a move I use fairly frequently myself, even though I do it slightly differently from the way you described it. Nonetheless, my description of it was accurate, and it is functional as described? No, your description, meaning the words you used was NOT accurate and it was NOT clear, that' why it took so long to arrive at what you were trying to say. If it is not "accurate" (as I didn't describe to the final end) how do you know that you have "finally figured out what you were trying to say"? (what did I say?) All right, let me rephrase this: Your initial writing was neither accurate nor clear. I took reams of space and discussion and time to figure out what you were trying to say. After great lengths of questioning and discussion what you were trying to communicate became clear. "Oxymoronic?" I talking about what you call a slip or slipped turn in which you are increasing the radius of a turn by allowing the tips of the skis to slip away from the direction of the turn. So my words take you long time to reflect, nevertheless, you rag on me "inability to make [you] understand"? Much discussion is required before I can figure our what you are saying, Yes, that's because you read with your narrow-minded bias. reflection has nothing to do with it. Reflection gives you the "depth" of words, in our discussion, the meaning of my words are all terminated at the physical level; i.e. they are reflectable through your body sensation and its surroundings. Yes, your words are certainly terminated at the physical level by me. Skiing, on one level is certainly like that. First you need the mechanics and then you can empty your mind so that the reflection can take place and you can "go with the flow", which allows you to "get" the mechanics more completely, which.... The zen archer who practices his skill with no thought of hitting the target, but only improving his skill and becoming a part of the bow, will most certainly hit his target. I'm asking you to explain yourself in words that I understand. Get rid of that pompous self-righteous mentality may help you that, probably. You get rid of your pompous self-righteous attitude that assumes that the world revolves around you and that you can use any words that you want in any way that you want and expect the listener to understand without further explanation. The world simply does not work that way. And, Yes, I'm still ragging on you for not using words in the way they are understood by English speakers. That only reflects a little knowledge mentality. See above. It is English, after all, that we are conversing in. It is world wide usenet, an international setting, and let's not forget, the subject is SKIING. Hmmm, so now "world wide usenet" is a language. The subject certainly is skiing, but the words used to describe the subject of skiing are in ENGLISH. Now here you've gone and written something in such a way that people may not understand because it's not common usage and then tried to back it up with the fiction that it IS common usage at Kirkwood. I got my impression from a guy with a Kirkwood season pass, where do you get your "common usage" of the term at Kirkwood? If I heard from someone what you heard, my irony meter would peg hard on the right side of the dial and I'd laugh like hell at this guy talking about "slush powder". I certainly wouldn't take him seriously and I would doubt very much if he was altogether serious. That only reflects a little knowledge mentality. No that reflects my knowledge that most of the skiers that I know have a sense of humor. On top of that, you have ragged on Bob for failing to see your meaning when it's your use of words that is keeping him from seeing your meaning. Maybe you guys should learn how to read words metaphorically, to broaden you guys perception? I understand metaphor in the context they are given. But lock of perception. Hmm, is a lock of perception like a lock of hair or it like a lock on a door? Spell checkers only go so far. You still have to read what you wrote. Perception is gained through context. There are words in English which sound and are spelled the same but have different meanings. They are called homographs. The only way to discern the meaning of the work is through context. For instance if I wrote, "I can't bear to see you suffer like this." or maybe, "There is a bear attacking my garbage cans." The word "bear" is used in both sentences and the meaning is very clear. The word is the same in both but have very different meanings. The context is what reveals the meaning. It's simple really, you have invented an oxymoron by virtue of the fact that most English speaker's sense of powder is "fluffy" and slush is about as far from fluffy as it's possible to get. So you English speakers never use the term "'wet' powder"? No. Meaning? Complete sentence please. First of all, we weren't talking about the expression "wet powder" we were talking about the expression "slush powder", but... No, we English speakers never use the term "'wet' powder" when referring to anything. For instance flour is definitely a powder, don't you agree? If I add water to it, it's no longer called flour or powder. It's call "dough" or maybe "batter" if it's wet enough to be stirred. It's not called "wet flour". I skied with LAL back at the end of February. On Monday we had a foot of fresh snow. Lucky you, it wasn't supposed to be there (by the earlier weather reports). We called it powder and LAL later confirmed that the water content was about 8% which is within Bob's definition of "powder" being between 2% and 10% water. So what do you call those snows with water content of 12%? Actually it was 12%, my mistake which LAL corrected me on, and I would still call it powder. So, "Bob's definition" is incorrect? Yes, no, maybe, he was shooting from the hip too. It was fluffy, at least for the first time through it. So the second time is no longer fluffy, what do you call that? Crud, or maybe "cut up crud". When that high water content fresh snow or "Sierra Powder" which is still fluffy until skiers selectively compress it in lines zig-zagging down and across the hill. This partially compressed snow will deflect skis rather effectively and selectively. That to me, and many others, is the definition of crud. Now crud also changes. The compressed chunks might become refrozen at night leaving rock hard "chicken heads" or as we tend to call them in the east "death cookies". This can also happen to slush, but slush more often refreezes consistently creating a highly bulletproof ice until the sun breaks it back down into slush, or maybe corn. On the previous Saturday, LAL took me over onto the sunny "backside" of the area. We found fairly new loose snow, somewhat cut up, but not bad. With the sun hitting it I would have guessed a water content of around 25%. It was very hard for me to turn in because it was sticky. Yup, that's maybe what the most sierra snow is right now; you need to know how to flatten the boards--yes, flatboarding --to ski it. Hmm. Watching LAL ski it, I'd say that a good carving technique would be the way to make turns. Set the skis up on edge and let them arc around. You are not going to do much in the way of skidded turns in that stuff. Truly wet snow, or slush which is really mostly water (I'd say upwards of 75%) is actually easier for me to ski on than that sticky stuff. I actually like skiing what we here in the east call "slush bumps". But you think "slush bumps" is ok, but "slush powder" is oxymoron? Slush powder is clearly oxymoronic or maybe just plain moronic for the reasons I gave. Or just your reasoning oxymoronic? "slush"-snow wet, "powder"-snow dry, and "slush powder"-snow is somewhere in between, what so oxymoronic about? I think we have discussed what is between. It's an oxymoron in the same way that "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence" are oxymorons. Huh?! That towel was wet dry. The "wet dry" part of that statement are polar opposites. This part of the statement, then, is an oxymoron. Slush and powder are polar opposites. Putting them together is an oxymoron. As for the American idiom expressions: "Jumbo" means large. "Shrimp" while, in this case, means an aquatic crustacean, it can also mean something or something which is small. There is a double entendre here and is kind of a joke. "jumbo shrimp" then would be "big small" which are polar opposites and therefore an oxymoron. The other example refers to the general impression of the populace that nothing which is "military" can be "intelligent". Another joke. The describe something with expressions which are polar opposites. However, a bump can be made with powder, ice or slush. Easily. It can even be ice in the troughs and powder on the tops. That's the way they were at Killington today. When the sun hits them the can be made of wetter snow or soft sticky snow. When the sun hits them for several days, it's 45 degrees and they get rained on, the bumps are most certainly made of slush. Powder cannot be made of slush. That's what you are asking me to accept. Maybe we ask too much of you. I believe you are. You haven't tried to refute my notion and statement that slush is probably upwards of 75% water. Now I ask you, how can you, with a straight face (which is where this all started) tell me that a slurry of 75% water can be powder? Moronic! It is. IS Oxymoronic? IS VtSkier |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
VtSkier wrote:
As for the American idiom expressions: "Jumbo" means large. "Shrimp" while, in this case, means an aquatic crustacean, it can also mean something or something which is small. There is a double entendre here and is kind of a joke. "jumbo shrimp" then would be "big small" which are polar opposites and therefore an oxymoron. Here let me help by demonstrating an oxymoron we can all relate to: "An articulate Yunlong" A. ;-) |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote: Bob Lee wrote: yunlong wrote: Bob Lee wrote: yunlong wrote: [...] 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? It depends on what the snow is like - there are many accurate names for the many distinct types of snow that are found between slush and powder. "What do you call it?" Corn, hardpack. chalk, chopped, firm, graupel, cement, sugar, snot, hoar, wet, heavy, light, ice, frozen, refroze, frozen chicken heads, slop, granular, freshies, fetchies, windpack, windblown, windbuff, crust, creamy, crap, crud, death cookies, death cantalopes, glazed, firn, rime, styrofoam, satstrugi, faceted, punchy...but deciding which word would depend on the snow's characteristics and properties. And none of those listed are powder or slush. Wow, so you think those terms are better than "slush powder" to describe the snow condition? And you say that you understand/know all those terms are for describing a snow condition, but you cannot comprehend "slush powder"? Yup, partitioned mind it is. [...] but you didn't write any metaphors - you wrote an oxymoron. Metaphor, n. "a figure of speech in witch a term or phrase is applied to something to which is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance,"--the random house dictionary-- Given that "slush powder" is not comprehensible to you, but "slush" and "powder" are, so when "slush powder" is something new to you, how would you go about to find out the new thing? Look the resemblance. What resemblance can you comprehend is depended on whether or not you have the mental capacity to put "slush" + "powder" together. "In the realm of arrogance, verbiage reigns." - sting Given that you can come up 38+ terms to describe the snow condition but cannot comprehend "slush powder"? Verbiage it is. You *do* know that metaphors are not oxymorons, that there is a distinct difference? Your "oxymoron" is oxymoronic. And that's a good metaphor. No, actually it's not. Not sure you know enough to figure that out. We see that you've got a talent for at oxymorons, now try writing a metaphor (like I did above) and then tell us the difference between a metaphor and an oxymoron. As noted above. For extra points, see if you can use the term "chew-toy" in your metaphor. Example: I play with Ichin Shin like my dog plays with his favorite chew-toy. Like Bob Lee chewing words; like the dog, like the owner? 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. Hahahahaha! Shallow it is. Coherent you aren't Not sure you even know what "coherent" is, given that you can whip up 38+ terms to describe the snow condition but cannot comprehend a descriptive term "slush powder." IS Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jackson (and Utah) mid-trip report | lal_truckee | Alpine Skiing | 154 | March 25th 05 03:57 PM |
Jackson (and Utah) pre-trip report | lal_truckee | Alpine Skiing | 1 | March 10th 05 03:10 AM |
Christmas 2005 Ski Trip | BostonJD | Alpine Skiing | 3 | February 3rd 05 06:35 AM |
Jackson Hole...here WE come | slownlow | North American Ski Resorts | 2 | January 20th 05 09:10 PM |
Trip Report: Jackson Hole/SLC | Switters | Snowboarding | 0 | March 20th 04 01:53 PM |