Fantastic skiing

"taichiskiing" wrote in message


It's not "no one" but a small group of gapers on RSA now still
bewildered by their little knowledge.

For certain values of small group. Specifically - everyone except you.

We have tried your bashing in
sci.math, you failed miserably.

Failed miserably is not quite the same thing as they were not interested
in
discussing your silly ideas. Perhaps if they had been able to understand
anything you were trying to say they might have been, but we will never
know, will we?

We know, "Barking, dodging, run away, and avoidance reflect submission
naturally."


Who are you quoting Itchie?

Clarencedarrow wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:13 am, A mighty Hungarian wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:58:19 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
wrote this crap:

However, when you just make something up, you are free to invent your
own terminology and will always "win" any debate on techique or
science.
Dittos.

Somebody hand me a sword.



A mighty Hungarian warrior
The blood of Attila runs through me

You want to see what this is all about. Check out
http://www.taomartialarts.com/ski/ski_lesson.html. Money, money,
money. The guy is a fraud.


Gee I am so shocked and he is an expert in telemark, snowboards and
downhill. But I have been searching the site and could not find one
customer comment.
Thought he smelled like a con man, just like the ones that hawk
counterfeit knock-off of major designers on canal street.

On Dec 6, 8:58 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 6, 6:09 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:49 am, Richard Henry wrote:

It is more verstaile because you can discuss it on RSA and no one
knows what you are talking about so you can always claim to be
correct.

It's not "no one" but a small group of gapers on RSA now still
bewildered by their little knowledge. We have tried your bashing in
sci.math, you failed miserably.

If someone were to post here on "a new method of making carved turns",
there would be a lot of discussion among knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics.

It sounds like a small knowledge trying to hold on its status quos. I
wouldn't mind to discuss the subject with "knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics," nevertheless,
haven't run into any such caliber here. My "angular acceleration" and
"slipping turn" challenge are still on the table.

Nevertheless, "high" level science is based on math, and math begins
with "definition," so, define your terms used is the fundamental
practice of science. The scientific method you mentioned above is only
a lower end of techniques.


However, when you just make something up, you are free to invent your
own terminology and will always "win" any debate on techique or
science.

Nothing made up in my scientific arguments, as I said, they were based
on Newton's Mechanism theory. It is your little knowledge domain and
narrow-minded vocabularies couldn't keep up.

A small knowledge "argues" to "win" verbal gratification for its ego.

A great knowledge "argues" to "seek" higher level knowledge.


IS

On Dec 8, 6:29*am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:58 am, Richard Henry wrote:





On Dec 6, 6:09 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:49 am, Richard Henry wrote:

It is more verstaile because you can discuss it on RSA and no one
knows what you are talking about so you can always claim to be
correct.

It's not "no one" but a small group of gapers on RSA now still
bewildered by their little knowledge. We have tried your bashing in
sci.math, you failed miserably.

If someone were to post here on "a new method of making carved turns",
there would be a lot of discussion among knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics.

It sounds like a small knowledge trying to hold on its status quos. I
wouldn't mind to discuss the subject with "knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics," nevertheless,
haven't run into any such caliber here. My "angular acceleration" and
"slipping turn" challenge are still on the table.

Nevertheless, "high" level science is based on math, and math begins
with "definition," so, define your terms used is the fundamental
practice of science. The scientific method you mentioned above is only
a lower end of techniques.



However, when you just *make something up, you are free to invent your
own terminology and will always "win" any debate on techique or
science.

Nothing made up in my scientific arguments, as I said, they were based
on Newton's Mechanism theory. It is your little knowledge domain and
narrow-minded vocabularies couldn't keep up.

A small knowledge "argues" to "win" verbal gratification for its ego.

A great knowledge "argues" to "seek" higher level knowledge.

Quad erat demonstrandum

On Dec 8, 6:36 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:29 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:58 am, Richard Henry wrote:

On Dec 6, 6:09 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:49 am, Richard Henry wrote:

It is more verstaile because you can discuss it on RSA and no one
knows what you are talking about so you can always claim to be
correct.

It's not "no one" but a small group of gapers on RSA now still
bewildered by their little knowledge. We have tried your bashing in
sci.math, you failed miserably.

If someone were to post here on "a new method of making carved turns",
there would be a lot of discussion among knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics.

It sounds like a small knowledge trying to hold on its status quos. I
wouldn't mind to discuss the subject with "knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics," nevertheless,
haven't run into any such caliber here. My "angular acceleration" and
"slipping turn" challenge are still on the table.

Nevertheless, "high" level science is based on math, and math begins
with "definition," so, define your terms used is the fundamental
practice of science. The scientific method you mentioned above is only
a lower end of techniques.

However, when you just make something up, you are free to invent your
own terminology and will always "win" any debate on techique or
science.

Nothing made up in my scientific arguments, as I said, they were based
on Newton's Mechanism theory. It is your little knowledge domain and
narrow-minded vocabularies couldn't keep up.

A small knowledge "argues" to "win" verbal gratification for its ego.

A great knowledge "argues" to "seek" higher level knowledge.

Quad erat demonstrandum

Precisely.


IS

On Dec 8, 7:11*am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:36 am, Richard Henry wrote:





On Dec 8, 6:29 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:58 am, Richard Henry wrote:

On Dec 6, 6:09 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:49 am, Richard Henry wrote:

It is more verstaile because you can discuss it on RSA and no one
knows what you are talking about so you can always claim to be
correct.

It's not "no one" but a small group of gapers on RSA now still
bewildered by their little knowledge. We have tried your bashing in
sci.math, you failed miserably.

If someone were to post here on "a new method of making carved turns",
there would be a lot of discussion among knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics.

It sounds like a small knowledge trying to hold on its status quos. I
wouldn't mind to discuss the subject with "knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics," nevertheless,
haven't run into any such caliber here. My "angular acceleration" and
"slipping turn" challenge are still on the table.

Nevertheless, "high" level science is based on math, and math begins
with "definition," so, define your terms used is the fundamental
practice of science. The scientific method you mentioned above is only
a lower end of techniques.

However, when you just *make something up, you are free to invent your
own terminology and will always "win" any debate on techique or
science.

Nothing made up in my scientific arguments, as I said, they were based
on Newton's Mechanism theory. It is your little knowledge domain and
narrow-minded vocabularies couldn't keep up.

A small knowledge "argues" to "win" verbal gratification for its ego.

A great knowledge "argues" to "seek" higher level knowledge.

Quad erat demonstrandum

Precisely.

Not quite. I misspelled "quod".

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 06:29:04 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
wrote this crap:


It sounds like a small knowledge trying to hold on its status quos. I
wouldn't mind to discuss the subject with "knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics," nevertheless,
haven't run into any such caliber here. My "angular acceleration" and
"slipping turn" challenge are still on the table.


Mumbo Jumbo.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.

Old story.

Let's discuss something important. Should I wrap up my Sarah Palin
Action Figure, and place it under the Christmas Tree that I set up in
the living room, or the one in the Vath Cave?




A mighty Hungarian warrior
The blood of Attila runs through me

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 06:36:48 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
wrote this crap:

A great knowledge "argues" to "seek" higher level knowledge.

Quad erat demonstrandum


Heh heh heh.

Certe. Loquor Latinum.

I shall translate. "Show us your balls."

Merry Christmas.




A mighty Hungarian warrior
The blood of Attila runs through me

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:11:33 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
wrote this crap:

A great knowledge "argues" to "seek" higher level knowledge.

Quad erat demonstrandum

Precisely.

Actually, I think you missed something.

Merry Christmas.




A mighty Hungarian warrior
The blood of Attila runs through me

On Dec 8, 8:14*am, A mighty Hungarian wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 06:29:04 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
wrote this crap:

It sounds like a small knowledge trying to hold on its status quos. I
wouldn't mind to discuss the subject with "knowledgable people that
would include established terminaology, standard training techniques,
and even analysis according to the laws of physics," nevertheless,
haven't run into any such caliber here. My "angular acceleration" and
"slipping turn" challenge are still on the table.

Mumbo Jumbo.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.

Old story.

Let's discuss something important. *Should I wrap up my Sarah Palin
Action Figure, and place it under the Christmas Tree that I set up in
the living room, or the one in the Vath Cave?

When you say "action figure", do you really mean "life-size
inflatable"?