Total Body Automation

On Jul 6, 11:46 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
You forgot the torque/de-stability generated by swinging those poles
around.

No, I didn't. Because there isn't any.

Of course, if you don't play a full-deck. Any movement moves through
air generates drag and any force applied off the center generates
torque, that's just the simple fundamental physics.


That would be a different run, wouldn't it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1wwq35gZlg

Once again, there are no moguls in that run.

Once again, you ain't got no talent to see it.

I can see the tops of your boots at all times. Hence: no moguls.

Your narrow-minded definition doesn't shed the light on this subject.
You get stuck on the *sizes* of the "moguls" and missed the
*techniques* of "mogul skiing." Taichi Skiing/line-skiing tends to
shrink the size of the moguls as it rides the equal equilibrium-line
through the moguls.

Sorry. You called it a mogul run. If I can always see the tops of your
boots then there aren't any moguls there.

Sorry, "Your narrow-minded definition doesn't shed the light on this
subject. You get stuck on the *sizes* of the "moguls" and missed the
*techniques* of "mogul skiing." Taichi Skiing/line-skiing tends to
shrink the size of the moguls as it rides the equal equilibrium-line
through the moguls."


IS

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

On Jul 7, 12:04 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
Just typos, nevertheless, the fact remains, that you *cannot* even
track a "straight line" on two legs, let alone one leg. Modern shaped-
skis may make turning easier, which actually makes tracking a
"straight line" difficult if you don't know flatboarding.

I can track a straight line on two legs, Chai Tea. I can do it on modern
shape skis or old gear.

It's not hard and it hasn't been hard since I was like 9.

Sounds familiar story. A kid about 9 or 10 years old, wearing
rollerblades, in a local skateboard park, and bragging about how easy
is skateboarding blah blah blah to a group of older teens, and
escalated to that he can do *9*. So the others challenged him to do
it. "No, I can't, I don't have my skateboard with me," the kid said.
So an older teen handed him his skateboard. "Oh no, my dad won't let
me," said the kid. Smooth talking kid.

That story might be familiar in some context, but is completely non
sequitur here.

Can I straight line run on skis? Yes, and I have been able to since I
was 9.


Maybe you do, you Canadian kids ice-skate a lot; nevertheless, you are
simply unbelievable; given your history of denials, and your casual
mentioned "golf season," I don't think you are even into the sport of
"rollerblading," let a lone "rollerblade-skiing," you blowhard. Wheels
on the hill, if you don't know how to S turn, you won't last a minute.

But I do know how to S-turn, Chai Tea.

And, no, I'm not "into" rollerblading. I can just do it better than you
even if I'm only doing it one day a year.

That shows how arrogant you are.

Nope. It shows how bad you are.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

On Jul 6, 11:46 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
You forgot the torque/de-stability generated by swinging those poles
around.

No, I didn't. Because there isn't any.

Of course, if you don't play a full-deck. Any movement moves through
air generates drag and any force applied off the center generates
torque, that's just the simple fundamental physics.

But:

1. You can stream the poles straight behind you so there is no torque on
the wrists.

2. Even with the poles down, the force and thus the torque on the wrists
is minimal.

3. The torque from the right pole cancels out the torque from the left
pole.

4. There is nothing inherently distabilizing about torque, as you try to
imply. If that were true, why would the torque about your ankles
generated by the force of air resistance on your body also be
destabilizing?



That would be a different run, wouldn't it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1wwq35gZlg

Once again, there are no moguls in that run.

Once again, you ain't got no talent to see it.

I can see the tops of your boots at all times. Hence: no moguls.

Your narrow-minded definition doesn't shed the light on this subject.
You get stuck on the *sizes* of the "moguls" and missed the
*techniques* of "mogul skiing." Taichi Skiing/line-skiing tends to
shrink the size of the moguls as it rides the equal equilibrium-line
through the moguls.

Sorry. You called it a mogul run. If I can always see the tops of your
boots then there aren't any moguls there.

Sorry, "Your narrow-minded definition doesn't shed the light on this
subject. You get stuck on the *sizes* of the "moguls" and missed the
*techniques* of "mogul skiing." Taichi Skiing/line-skiing tends to
shrink the size of the moguls as it rides the equal equilibrium-line
through the moguls."

In moguls there are low spots between the moguls. There is no path you
can take through a mogul field that will not take your skis into those
low spots with regularity.

Ergo, if your boots never disappear, there are no low spots. If there
are no low spots, there are no moguls.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

"taichiskiing" wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 12:04 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
Just typos, nevertheless, the fact remains, that you *cannot* even
track a "straight line" on two legs, let alone one leg. Modern shaped-
skis may make turning easier, which actually makes tracking a
"straight line" difficult if you don't know flatboarding.

I can track a straight line on two legs, Chai Tea. I can do it on modern
shape skis or old gear.

It's not hard and it hasn't been hard since I was like 9.

Sounds familiar story. A kid about 9 or 10 years old, wearing
rollerblades, in a local skateboard park, and bragging about how easy
is skateboarding blah blah blah to a group of older teens, and
escalated to that he can do *9*. So the others challenged him to do
it. "No, I can't, I don't have my skateboard with me," the kid said.
So an older teen handed him his skateboard. "Oh no, my dad won't let
me," said the kid. Smooth talking kid.

Maybe you do, you Canadian kids ice-skate a lot; nevertheless, you are
simply unbelievable; given your history of denials, and your casual
mentioned "golf season," I don't think you are even into the sport of
"rollerblading," let a lone "rollerblade-skiing," you blowhard. Wheels
on the hill, if you don't know how to S turn, you won't last a minute.

But I do know how to S-turn, Chai Tea.

And, no, I'm not "into" rollerblading. I can just do it better than you
even if I'm only doing it one day a year.

That shows how arrogant you are.

Pot kettle, black. Again and again. You are SOOOO arrogant.

"taichiskiing" wrote in message
...
On Jul 6, 11:34 am, "Bob F" wrote:
"taichiskiing" wrote in message
...

Your inadequate knowledge shows. An 8,9 year old may survive on their
natural reflexes and semi-fearless, but not the 29 or 49 with their
aging joints, anxieties, and fear, mostly.

No problem at 59 here.

You shouldn't have problem if you claim yourself an expert skier;
nevertheless, given your weak response, it remains a challenge to you
to show that you can even do it.


The reality is that you don't even know you cannot track a straight
line without knowing how to ski the ski flat--yes, that's
flatboarding.

In which case, we all know flatboarding. Thanks for finally defining it so
clearly.

A slow learner, eh; nevertheless, you may finally "understand" the
meaning of the flatboarding, but "know" [how to do it]? Not until you
can actually do it, it remains a challenge to you.

Not everyone, only gappers, with their little minded biases,
arrogance, and bigotry.

Pot, kettle, black. Again.

You are getting blacker, as your denial continues.


Ooh, that hurts, pretty good malicious insinuation, not that you even
know what "life" is. I'm happy that I made a life that I can ski 120+
days a year. And you? What are your prospects in life, and how many
you have achieved?

Lets see. 120 days skiing, 240 days bragging here about your superiority.
Doesn't leave much time for a life.

Of course not if you think that 8 hours a day bashing on the 'net
makes a glory life.

That's what you think; no, they are not to prove my skiing to the
gappers, but to prove my statements, and they are all true. It is you
gappers desperately trying in vain to smear them. Is not that why you
keep bump my posts?

LOL. You are funny!

Really? "Why you keep bump my posts?" if it does nothing for you?

Keep the sorry for yourself. A gapper can only see others' low
performance, but never in himself.

Then you are a "gapper". Again, thanks for making it clear finally.

No, the "gap" existed between what one said and what one did makes one
a "gapper." So, not until you can prove that you can do what you said,
you remain a gapper. Yup, clearly.

The same stupid response, over and over. You are SOOOO full of yourself.

On Jul 7, 11:46*am, taichiskiing
wrote:

nevertheless, if one feels being challenged, TCS
challenge is still open.

Before I "accept" this TCS challege, I'd like to know what you base
the challenge on...I suspect you will say no one "wins" a TCS
challenge...So what will you base the challenge on ? Serious question
here...try not to lob insults and labels from your high-horse. Just
answer my question. What exactly does a TCS challenge entail ?

On Jul 7, 11:55*am, taichiskiing
wrote:

No, the "gap" existed between what one said and what one did makes one
a "gapper." So, not until you can prove that you can do what you said,
you remain a gapper. Yup, clearly.

Based on all the video evidence, you are yourself a gapper.

On Jul 7, 12:05*pm, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:45 pm, Yabahoobs wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:03 pm, taichiskiing
wrote:

The reality is that you don't even know you cannot track a
straight line without knowing how to ski the ski flat--yes,
that's flatboarding.

LoL...I see. *You know how others ski better than themselves.
Priceless.

Yes, I know how you gappers ski better than your gapper self.

Again, IS the fact remains that keeping your "boards" flat
and going in a straight line, on a green or
blue...groomed...wide open....is something anyone can do. *But
denial is clearly your forte...so by all means... continue.

Yup, if you want to be an arrogant ignorant, by all means, it's your
prerogative.

When you can do it, I give your words some credits.

I did it when I was 9. *I still do it at the end of a long
day, when I'm feeling lazy. *THAT is what you offer on
skis...Style-only and laziness.

What you can do at 9 doesn't count; it is your knowledge and ability
to do it now that matters. And you cannot do any high level skiing
with laziness, you are only courting disaster.



Ooh, that hurts, pretty good malicious insinuation, not that
you even know what "life" is.

LoL

I'm happy that I made a life that I can ski 120+
days a year.

I call what you do on skis "Sleeping at the Wheel".

I call your assessment "sleeping on the job."



And you? What are your prospects in life, and how many
you have achieved?

Clearly our priorities in life are different. *This matter is
every man's personal choice. *I would just hope that any man
who spends 1/3of a year on skis...that you'd be a HELL of a
lot better than what you are. *It's sad really. *You are sad.

I ski 1/3 of a year and you think I'm sad? Guess you don't really know
what "happy" is. That'll be a sad life to live, young man.



That's what you think; no, they are not to prove my skiing
to the gappers, but to prove my statements, and they are all
true. It is you gappers desperately trying in vain to smear
them. Is not that why you keep bump my posts?

"Smearing" is not stating the obvious undeniable reality. *If
you feel smeared by reality...then maybe you need to rethink
why you post videos of mediocre skiing in this group.

Why? I thought they reflected your mediocre skiing knowledge pretty
well.

The fact is IS, many of have
been skiing much more difficult, very well, very easily...and
maybe even with a degree of style...for well over 20 years. *I
am perhaps the youngest frequenter of this group. *Most others
have done the incredibly normal, typical, average things you
claim are extraordinary...many many years ago. *Most of us
have eclipsed you...years ago. *Based on your videos...that is
a fact (until you show us your arm-flailing technique on
something of even moderate difficulty.

When I can see what you can do, I may give your words some credits.



Take your argument with Alan re : Moguls vs. No Moguls...There
are clearly no moguls in that video. *None. *Whatsoever. *You
counter his statement of obvious fact with a dodge...You say
that he should be focusing more on analyzing mogul skiing
technique in your video...But if there are no
moguls...well...you do the math. *You can't just will moguls
to appear in your video...they're either there or they're
not...and in that video...and every other I've seen of
you...They are not.

Yup, what you see on youtube is only a distorted images/clip on the
'net, in a low power computer with low resolution display you may not
seen the moguls and other fine details of bumps, snow conditions and
etc., but if you cannot see the terrain by referencing other objects
such as trees, slope incline, and the skier's actions/reactions, etc,
then you don't have the skills to analysis the video clip.



"Gapper troll"? So we know who's a gapper in this group. The
real question is why you are here? Have you not plonked me
sometime ago already? To make your *glory life* on 'net bashing?

Aww did I hit a nerve ? (Nice dodge of my question, by the
way...akin to a 10 y/o)

What "question"? don't think you have the courage to take the answer.

"The real question is why you are here? Have you not plonked me
sometime ago already? To make your *glory life* on 'net bashing?"

Keep the sorry for yourself. A gapper can only see others'
low performance, but never in himself.

Nice dodge. *Now look in the mirror.

Nice dodge yourself, "don't think you have the courage to take the
answer," and my question is still open.


IS

LoL. You're funny.

Here are some other things that remain open.

1. You posting videos of your technique on more difficult terrain.

2. Your grasp of the English language.

3. Any description, at all, on what a TCS challenge entails.

On Jul 7, 11:46 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:46 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
You forgot the torque/de-stability generated by swinging those poles
around.

No, I didn't. Because there isn't any.

Of course, if you don't play a full-deck. Any movement moves through
air generates drag and any force applied off the center generates
torque, that's just the simple fundamental physics.

But:

1. You can stream the poles straight behind you so there is no
torque on the wrists.

"Wrists"? The pole-plant motion center is at the shoulder, and there's
always torque on the shoulders.


2. Even with the poles down, the force and thus the torque on
the wrists is minimal.

And the torque on the outside shoulder restricts/slows down the
turning.


3. The torque from the right pole cancels out the torque from
the left pole.

No, the outside pole has longer distance to travel, so it experiences
more torque. If you don't count/correct the difference, your outside
pole will lag behind the turning curve and de-stabilize your turning.


4. There is nothing inherently distabilizing about torque, as
you try to imply.

Yes, any spinning/rotation motion de-stabilizes the original motion,
so you HAVE TO take care of it, and yes, that's an extra work.

And without using poles, you can eliminate all these problems.

If that were true, why would the torque
about your ankles generated by the force of air resistance on
your body also be destabilizing?

Not sure what's your question. I don't usually rotate my ankles, and
the balance is maintained between the center of gravity (CoG) and base
of support (BoS), with both feet solidly slide on the snow, the effect/
impact of the air resistance is at the minimum.

That would be a different run, wouldn't it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1wwq35gZlg

Once again, there are no moguls in that run.

Once again, you ain't got no talent to see it.

I can see the tops of your boots at all times. Hence: no moguls.

Your narrow-minded definition doesn't shed the light on this subject.
You get stuck on the *sizes* of the "moguls" and missed the
*techniques* of "mogul skiing." Taichi Skiing/line-skiing tends to
shrink the size of the moguls as it rides the equal equilibrium-line
through the moguls.

Sorry. You called it a mogul run. If I can always see the tops of your
boots then there aren't any moguls there.

Sorry, "Your narrow-minded definition doesn't shed the light on this
subject. You get stuck on the *sizes* of the "moguls" and missed the
*techniques* of "mogul skiing." Taichi Skiing/line-skiing tends to
shrink the size of the moguls as it rides the equal equilibrium-line
through the moguls."

In moguls there are low spots between the moguls. There is no
path you can take through a mogul field that will not take
your skis into those low spots with regularity.

Ergo, if your boots never disappear, there are no low spots.
If there are no low spots, there are no moguls.

No, if you know how to ski the "equal gradient/equilibrium lines,"
which is somewhere in the middle of the bump/mogul, you don't have to
go down to those low spots. The "equal gradient line" may cover a few
moguls, so the turn is elongated and appears slow but smooth. And
that's how Taichi Skiing shrinks the moguls. Taichi mogul Skiing is a
new improvement over your old fashion knee-banging mogul skiing.

I did say your narrow-minded mogul skiing doesn't shed the light on
the subject.


IS

taichiskiing wrote:
On Jul 7, 11:46 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:46 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:
You forgot the torque/de-stability generated by swinging those poles
around.
No, I didn't. Because there isn't any.
Of course, if you don't play a full-deck. Any movement moves through
air generates drag and any force applied off the center generates
torque, that's just the simple fundamental physics.
But:

1. You can stream the poles straight behind you so there is no
torque on the wrists.

"Wrists"? The pole-plant motion center is at the shoulder, and there's
always torque on the shoulders.

2. Even with the poles down, the force and thus the torque on
the wrists is minimal.

And the torque on the outside shoulder restricts/slows down the
turning.

3. The torque from the right pole cancels out the torque from
the left pole.

No, the outside pole has longer distance to travel, so it experiences
more torque. If you don't count/correct the difference, your outside
pole will lag behind the turning curve and de-stabilize your turning.

4. There is nothing inherently distabilizing about torque, as
you try to imply.

Yes, any spinning/rotation motion de-stabilizes the original motion,
so you HAVE TO take care of it, and yes, that's an extra work.

And without using poles, you can eliminate all these problems.

If that were true, why would the torque
about your ankles generated by the force of air resistance on
your body also be destabilizing?

Not sure what's your question. I don't usually rotate my ankles, and
the balance is maintained between the center of gravity (CoG) and base
of support (BoS), with both feet solidly slide on the snow, the effect/
impact of the air resistance is at the minimum.

That would be a different run, wouldn't it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1wwq35gZlg
Once again, there are no moguls in that run.
Once again, you ain't got no talent to see it.
I can see the tops of your boots at all times. Hence: no moguls.
Your narrow-minded definition doesn't shed the light on this subject.
You get stuck on the *sizes* of the "moguls" and missed the
*techniques* of "mogul skiing." Taichi Skiing/line-skiing tends to
shrink the size of the moguls as it rides the equal equilibrium-line
through the moguls.
Sorry. You called it a mogul run. If I can always see the tops of your
boots then there aren't any moguls there.
Sorry, "Your narrow-minded definition doesn't shed the light on this
subject. You get stuck on the *sizes* of the "moguls" and missed the
*techniques* of "mogul skiing." Taichi Skiing/line-skiing tends to
shrink the size of the moguls as it rides the equal equilibrium-line
through the moguls."
In moguls there are low spots between the moguls. There is no
path you can take through a mogul field that will not take
your skis into those low spots with regularity.

Ergo, if your boots never disappear, there are no low spots.
If there are no low spots, there are no moguls.

No, if you know how to ski the "equal gradient/equilibrium lines,"
which is somewhere in the middle of the bump/mogul, you don't have to
go down to those low spots. The "equal gradient line" may cover a few
moguls, so the turn is elongated and appears slow but smooth. And
that's how Taichi Skiing shrinks the moguls. Taichi mogul Skiing is a
new improvement over your old fashion knee-banging mogul skiing.

I did say your narrow-minded mogul skiing doesn't shed the light on
the subject.

If you are skiing an "equal gradient/equilibrium line" you are
staying in the low spots continually, but there are certainly
still low spots, by definition, you cannot have highs without
lows. If it's all a flat (tilted) plane, it's a groomer.

If you try to ski "somewhere in the middle of the bump/mogul"
you must still cross either highs or lows to get to the next
mid level. To try flatten out a mogul field, you must try to
ski the lows only. The most consistent, non-bumpy line in any
mogul field MUST be the lows. These are the only areas which,
by definition, CAN be connected, though they rarely are.



IS