Jackson (and Utah) mid-trip report

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...

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

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

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

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

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. ;-)

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.

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

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. ;-)

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