Skid, slip, and carved turn

Based on the quality of a turn, a downhill ski turn can be classified
in three categories: carved turn, skidded turn, and slipped turn.

A carved turn is made by the technique called "carving," where the ski
is made traveling along the curvature of reverse chamber of the ski
without any slippage; i.e. the tail of the ski follows the tip of the
ski along the curved path in a synchronized manner. A skidded turn
happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a slightly faster
rate than the tip of the ski, which causes the ski over-turn. And a
slipped turn is when the tip of the ski moves downhill faster than the
tail, which straightens the curved path somewhat, is an under-turn.

What makes the carved turn so special is that, while both skidding and
slipping rob the speed/energy of the ski, carving maintains its turning
ability without losing its speed. The caveat is, nevertheless, that the
skier must continue to turn to carve, thus reduces the skier's forward
speed.

Most of parallel turns are done with skidding turn, where skidding
serves dual purposes of breaking and turning.

Though flatboarding employs all three techniques to maintain a
proper/desired line, it generally utilizes flat board and slipping turn
for faster speed and straighter line downhill.

Five-year-old Andrea asked, why she had to turn when she only wanted to
go there/straight?

Interesting,
IS

yunlong wrote:
Based on the quality of a turn, a downhill ski turn can be classified
in three categories: carved turn, skidded turn, and slipped turn.

Based on the "quality" of a turn? Foot, help me out here.
Quality supposes "good", "bad", and other subjective
descriptions. I think we need to get back to the mechanics
of skiing.

"A turn can be initiated by skidding, slipping (we are going
to have a discussion on the difference between these two,
but I think I know what you are talking about) or by rolling
the ankles and bending the ski into a 'carve'." Is this what
you want to say?

A carved turn is made by the technique called "carving," where the ski
is made traveling along the curvature of reverse chamber of the ski
without any slippage; i.e. the tail of the ski follows the tip of the
ski along the curved path in a synchronized manner.

A carved turn is made by carving. Yeah, right. I actually think
you can do better than this with the language. It is considered
a mistake to define a word with the same word or a different
form of the word.

But I'm not so sure. "where the ski is made TO TRAVEL along" the
path described by the curve of the ski, either the sidecut radius
or as reduced by bending. The tail of the ski follows the tip of
the ski along the curved path described above. (forget "synchronized
manner".)

A skidded turn
happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a slightly faster
rate than the tip of the ski,

That's mechanics, OK.

which causes the ski over-turn.

wrong choice of words. "over-turn" can mean either to turn too
much or tip over. Neither meaning is what you wanted.

You may be thinking of "over-steer" and "under-steer" as
applied to driving a car, it doesn't work for skiing.

The skid can be the entire turn until you set your edges
to stop turning (or initiate a skid in the opposite direction).
Or it can be the beginning of a carved arc where the skid gets
you turning in the direction you want to go, you set your edges
and apply pressure to the outside ski and carve an arc. Very
effective in the days when skis didn't have much sidecut.

And a
slipped turn is when the tip of the ski moves downhill faster than the
tail, which straightens the curved path somewhat, is an under-turn.

I'm not sure about this. If the slip reduces the amount the
ski is turning, isn't it an "ANTI-TURN"? I can't imagine a
situation where allowing the tip to slip out is desirable
EXCEPT in "falling leaf" which is a survival, extreme braking
move when you are deep do do.

What makes the carved turn so special is that, while both skidding and
slipping rob the speed/energy of the ski, carving maintains its turning
ability without losing its speed.

True, the carved turn itself does not cause braking. It will
help to control your speed by causing you to take a longer
path down the mountain which, by definition is a less steep
path down the mountain.

The caveat is, nevertheless, that the
skier must continue to turn to carve, thus reduces the skier's forward
speed.

I'm not even going to try to translate this. You might
be saying that the longer path slows you down.

Most of parallel turns are done with skidding turn, where skidding
serves dual purposes of breaking and turning.

True, especially on steeps.

Though flatboarding employs all three techniques to maintain a
proper/desired line,

Okay...

it generally utilizes flat board and slipping turn
for faster speed and straighter line downhill.

As above, I can't imagine a situation where slipping
the tips is a good thing. Further, for me to slip the
tips of my skis as described, I need to be in the back
seat. Is this what your are proposing?

Five-year-old Andrea asked, why she had to turn when she only wanted to
go there/straight?

Is it time for something a little steeper? But with a
bunny berm at the end.

Interesting,
IS

My question to you is...
Why do you post these word pictures of skiing that may
or may not be accurate, including inaccuracies in the
understanding of the language? This is a newsgroup made
up of skiers who mostly have a decent understanding of
the mechanics and who don't need instruction at this
very elementary level.

Are you trying out explanations for your teaching on us?

If so, you might enlighten us and ask for our input
rather that insult us when we say you are not making
sense.

It is a sure thing that the folks who post here are not
going to adopt your method as an end-all be-all skiing
technique for ourselves. Many of us could do perfectly
what you have shown us in your videos. But why would
we want to?

Foot, OTOH, is suggesting words and methods for teaching
and is trying to convince us to teach without ego (if
indeed any of us are teachers). One of the things you
have shown us here (I said shown, not proven that you
own) is a huge ego. You have also shown us that at best
you have a barely adequate grasp of the mechanics. This
last may well be a failure in language, not actual
knowledge. But the ego is still there. "My way is the
only right way and you are an idiot if you don't agree."
This is what you sound like.

VtSkier

VtSkier wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Based on the quality of a turn, a downhill ski turn can be
classified
in three categories: carved turn, skidded turn, and slipped turn.

Based on the "quality" of a turn? Foot, help me out here.
Quality supposes "good", "bad", and other subjective
descriptions. I think we need to get back to the mechanics
of skiing.

Fast line, smooth transition, and clean, yes, these are some desired
"quality" of a turn.


"A turn can be initiated by skidding, slipping (we are going
to have a discussion on the difference between these two,
but I think I know what you are talking about) or by rolling
the ankles and bending the ski into a 'carve'." Is this what
you want to say?

Not exactly, I was saying there are three kinds of turn in downhill
skiing, and each has its usage and shortfall.


A carved turn is made by the technique called "carving," where the
ski
is made traveling along the curvature of reverse chamber of the ski
without any slippage; i.e. the tail of the ski follows the tip of
the
ski along the curved path in a synchronized manner.

A carved turn is made by carving.

Exactly, I might have used "like carving a piece of wood" to describe
it, as if you have ever done wood-carving, you'd know what that means;
however, how many of you have ever done wood-carving?

Yeah, right. I actually
think you can do better than this with the language. It is
considered a mistake to define a word with the same word or a
different form of the word.

You do get the meaning, don't you?


But I'm not so sure. "where the ski is made TO TRAVEL along"
the path described by the curve of the ski, either the sidecut
radius or as reduced by bending. The tail of the ski follows
the tip of the ski along the curved path described above.
(forget "synchronized manner".)

What are you not so sure about?


A skidded turn
happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a
slightly faster rate than the tip of the ski,

That's mechanics, OK.

which causes the ski over-turn.

wrong choice of words. "over-turn" can mean either to turn too
much or tip over. Neither meaning is what you wanted.

"Over-turn," as used to describe in skiing turn, would naturally mean
"turn too much," don't you think? As you used "tip over" what "tip" do
you mean? Wrangling the words.


You may be thinking of "over-steer" and "under-steer" as
applied to driving a car, it doesn't work for skiing.

Yup, we know how your partitioned thinking works; however, skid and
slip are actually physics terms, and the phenomena scientific facts.


The skid can be the entire turn until you set your edges
to stop turning (or initiate a skid in the opposite direction).
Or it can be the beginning of a carved arc where the skid gets
you turning in the direction you want to go, you set your edges
and apply pressure to the outside ski and carve an arc. Very
effective in the days when skis didn't have much sidecut.

Not sure what you're getting at; wherever you have your ski tail moved
faster than you ski tip during a turn, you are skidding.


And a
slipped turn is when the tip of the ski moves downhill faster than
the
tail, which straightens the curved path somewhat, is an under-turn.

I'm not sure about this. If the slip reduces the amount the
ski is turning, isn't it an "ANTI-TURN"?

Yes, as it is an "ANTI-TURN," the "line" would be straighter, thus
faster.

I can't imagine a
situation where allowing the tip to slip out is desirable
EXCEPT in "falling leaf" which is a survival, extreme braking
move when you are deep do do.

When you wash-out on skidding, only way to recover is to slip the tip
downhill. And when you slip the tip, the line would be straighter, so
you gain a better "downward"/"forward" speed.


What makes the carved turn so special is that, while both skidding
and
slipping rob the speed/energy of the ski, carving maintains its
turning
ability without losing its speed.

True, the carved turn itself does not cause braking. It will
help to control your speed by causing you to take a longer
path down the mountain which, by definition is a less steep
path down the mountain.

No, the carved turn slows itself down, or balances against gravity by
continuing turning uphill, yes, the longer path.


The caveat is, nevertheless, that the
skier must continue to turn to carve, thus reduces the
skier's forward speed.

I'm not even going to try to translate this. You might
be saying that the longer path slows you down.

That's true, too, as the forward speed goes.


Most of parallel turns are done with skidding turn, where
skidding serves dual purposes of breaking and turning.

True, especially on steeps.

Though flatboarding employs all three techniques to maintain
a proper/desired line,

Okay...

it generally utilizes flat board and slipping turn
for faster speed and straighter line downhill.

As above, I can't imagine a situation where slipping
the tips is a good thing. Further, for me to slip the
tips of my skis as described, I need to be in the back
seat. Is this what your are proposing?

You cannot slip the tips by sitting back seat; you can only do skid
with that posture. Slipping the tips is done by pressing the uphill
edges--the little toe side edge of the inside ski and the big toe side
of the outside ski--downward (away from the hill), which can only be
done with the pressure on the little ball of foot and little toe side
edge of the inside ski, which can only be done by moving your knee so
much forward to press the boot that your heel is actually suspended
inside your boot.


Five-year-old Andrea asked, why she had to turn when she
only wanted to go there/straight?

Is it time for something a little steeper? But with a
bunny berm at the end.

That little girl, now 6, is actually a black diamond skier at the
Heavenly.


Interesting,
IS

My question to you is...
Why do you post these word pictures of skiing that may
or may not be accurate,

Skid, slip, and carved turn are physics terms and scientific facts;
only thing inaccurate here is your knowledge about it.

including inaccuracies in the
understanding of the language?

Spare me your comment on language, your half-baked understanding does
not impress me.

This is a newsgroup made
up of skiers who mostly have a decent understanding of
the mechanics and who don't need instruction at this
very elementary level.

Maybe you should go back to the basic so you may actually learn
something new? How do you slip the tip again?


Are you trying out explanations for your teaching on us?

I am talking about how I ski, what, feel that you are been taught?


If so, you might enlighten us

Yes, I have provided you information on these scientific facts,

and ask for our input

you have no input but babbling.

rather that insult us when we say you are not making
sense.

As I said, you can only be insulted by your own incompetence.


It is a sure thing that the folks who post here are not
going to adopt your method as an end-all be-all skiing
technique for ourselves.

It's your skiing, not something I care.

Many of us could do perfectly
what you have shown us in your videos.

Yeah right.

Actually, you have seen nothing yet.

But why would we want to?

To enjoy the thrill of the ultimate "free" skiing?


Foot, OTOH, is suggesting words and methods for teaching
and is trying to convince us to teach without ego (if
indeed any of us are teachers). One of the things you
have shown us here (I said shown, not proven that you
own) is a huge ego. You have also shown us that at best
you have a barely adequate grasp of the mechanics.

That's what you said, or maybe you just don't know enough?

This last may well be a failure in language, not actual
knowledge. But the ego is still there.

Ego isn't a problem, we all have one; it is egotism that is the
problem.

"My way is the
only right way and you are an idiot if you don't agree."

That's your egotism talking.

This is what you sound like.

Egotism is one who boasts beyond one's own ability/knowledge to make
oneself [self-]important.

That's what you sound like.


IS


VtSkier

"yunlong" wrote:



A carved turn is made by carving.

Exactly, I might have used "like carving a piece of wood" to describe
it, as if you have ever done wood-carving, you'd know what that means;
however, how many of you have ever done wood-carving?

Moi. Je carve comme your vache espaniole. It's all in the honing
baby.

Yeah, right. I actually
think you can do better than this with the language. It is
considered a mistake to define a word with the same word or a
different form of the word.

You do get the meaning, don't you?

Our technology has evolved at a far too rapid a rate for our stagnant
minds.

But I'm not so sure. "where the ski is made TO TRAVEL along"
the path described by the curve of the ski, either the sidecut
radius or as reduced by bending. The tail of the ski follows
the tip of the ski along the curved path described above.
(forget "synchronized manner".)

What are you not so sure about?

I'm sure that I need to ski more. When I move to Santa Fe I'm going
to jump over a highway somewhere near Taos. It will be photographed
and then broadcast widely over the internet, at which point I'll
retire, consider myelf a success and start telemarking.

JP
*************************
AT. It's more than just a tire.

A skidded turn
happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a
slightly faster rate than the tip of the ski,

That's mechanics, OK.

which causes the ski over-turn.

wrong choice of words. "over-turn" can mean either to turn too
much or tip over. Neither meaning is what you wanted.

"Over-turn," as used to describe in skiing turn, would naturally mean
"turn too much," don't you think? As you used "tip over" what "tip" do
you mean? Wrangling the words.


You may be thinking of "over-steer" and "under-steer" as
applied to driving a car, it doesn't work for skiing.

Yup, we know how your partitioned thinking works; however, skid and
slip are actually physics terms, and the phenomena scientific facts.


The skid can be the entire turn until you set your edges
to stop turning (or initiate a skid in the opposite direction).
Or it can be the beginning of a carved arc where the skid gets
you turning in the direction you want to go, you set your edges
and apply pressure to the outside ski and carve an arc. Very
effective in the days when skis didn't have much sidecut.

Not sure what you're getting at; wherever you have your ski tail moved
faster than you ski tip during a turn, you are skidding.


And a
slipped turn is when the tip of the ski moves downhill faster than
the
tail, which straightens the curved path somewhat, is an under-turn.

I'm not sure about this. If the slip reduces the amount the
ski is turning, isn't it an "ANTI-TURN"?

Yes, as it is an "ANTI-TURN," the "line" would be straighter, thus
faster.

I can't imagine a
situation where allowing the tip to slip out is desirable
EXCEPT in "falling leaf" which is a survival, extreme braking
move when you are deep do do.

When you wash-out on skidding, only way to recover is to slip the tip
downhill. And when you slip the tip, the line would be straighter, so
you gain a better "downward"/"forward" speed.


What makes the carved turn so special is that, while both skidding
and
slipping rob the speed/energy of the ski, carving maintains its
turning
ability without losing its speed.

True, the carved turn itself does not cause braking. It will
help to control your speed by causing you to take a longer
path down the mountain which, by definition is a less steep
path down the mountain.

No, the carved turn slows itself down, or balances against gravity by
continuing turning uphill, yes, the longer path.


The caveat is, nevertheless, that the
skier must continue to turn to carve, thus reduces the
skier's forward speed.

I'm not even going to try to translate this. You might
be saying that the longer path slows you down.

That's true, too, as the forward speed goes.


Most of parallel turns are done with skidding turn, where
skidding serves dual purposes of breaking and turning.

True, especially on steeps.

Though flatboarding employs all three techniques to maintain
a proper/desired line,

Okay...

it generally utilizes flat board and slipping turn
for faster speed and straighter line downhill.

As above, I can't imagine a situation where slipping
the tips is a good thing. Further, for me to slip the
tips of my skis as described, I need to be in the back
seat. Is this what your are proposing?

You cannot slip the tips by sitting back seat; you can only do skid
with that posture. Slipping the tips is done by pressing the uphill
edges--the little toe side edge of the inside ski and the big toe side
of the outside ski--downward (away from the hill), which can only be
done with the pressure on the little ball of foot and little toe side
edge of the inside ski, which can only be done by moving your knee so
much forward to press the boot that your heel is actually suspended
inside your boot.


Five-year-old Andrea asked, why she had to turn when she
only wanted to go there/straight?

Is it time for something a little steeper? But with a
bunny berm at the end.

That little girl, now 6, is actually a black diamond skier at the
Heavenly.


Interesting,
IS

My question to you is...
Why do you post these word pictures of skiing that may
or may not be accurate,

Skid, slip, and carved turn are physics terms and scientific facts;
only thing inaccurate here is your knowledge about it.

including inaccuracies in the
understanding of the language?

Spare me your comment on language, your half-baked understanding does
not impress me.

This is a newsgroup made
up of skiers who mostly have a decent understanding of
the mechanics and who don't need instruction at this
very elementary level.

Maybe you should go back to the basic so you may actually learn
something new? How do you slip the tip again?


Are you trying out explanations for your teaching on us?

I am talking about how I ski, what, feel that you are been taught?


If so, you might enlighten us

Yes, I have provided you information on these scientific facts,

and ask for our input

you have no input but babbling.

rather that insult us when we say you are not making
sense.

As I said, you can only be insulted by your own incompetence.


It is a sure thing that the folks who post here are not
going to adopt your method as an end-all be-all skiing
technique for ourselves.

It's your skiing, not something I care.

Many of us could do perfectly
what you have shown us in your videos.

Yeah right.

Actually, you have seen nothing yet.

But why would we want to?

To enjoy the thrill of the ultimate "free" skiing?


Foot, OTOH, is suggesting words and methods for teaching
and is trying to convince us to teach without ego (if
indeed any of us are teachers). One of the things you
have shown us here (I said shown, not proven that you
own) is a huge ego. You have also shown us that at best
you have a barely adequate grasp of the mechanics.

That's what you said, or maybe you just don't know enough?

This last may well be a failure in language, not actual
knowledge. But the ego is still there.

Ego isn't a problem, we all have one; it is egotism that is the
problem.

"My way is the
only right way and you are an idiot if you don't agree."

That's your egotism talking.

This is what you sound like.

Egotism is one who boasts beyond one's own ability/knowledge to make
oneself [self-]important.

That's what you sound like.


IS


VtSkier

yunlong wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

yunlong wrote:

Based on the quality of a turn, a downhill ski turn can be

classified

in three categories: carved turn, skidded turn, and slipped turn.

Based on the "quality" of a turn? Foot, help me out here.
Quality supposes "good", "bad", and other subjective
descriptions. I think we need to get back to the mechanics
of skiing.


Fast line, smooth transition, and clean, yes, these are some desired
"quality" of a turn.

True, but not what you were talking about in the original
(your) paragraph.


"A turn can be initiated by skidding, slipping (we are going
to have a discussion on the difference between these two,
but I think I know what you are talking about) or by rolling
the ankles and bending the ski into a 'carve'." Is this what
you want to say?


Not exactly, I was saying there are three kinds of turn in downhill
skiing, and each has its usage and shortfall.

Ok, but later on I argue that slipping, as you described
may not fit into the definition of a turn. And now I understand
why you used "quality".


A carved turn is made by the technique called "carving," where the

ski

is made traveling along the curvature of reverse chamber of the ski
without any slippage; i.e. the tail of the ski follows the tip of

the

ski along the curved path in a synchronized manner.

A carved turn is made by carving.


Exactly, I might have used "like carving a piece of wood" to describe
it, as if you have ever done wood-carving, you'd know what that means;
however, how many of you have ever done wood-carving?

No, you would describe/define "carving a piece of wood" as
cutting the wood in certain ways using a knife. That's defining
"carving a piece of wood". Notice that I DID NOT use the
word "carving" in the definition.

Yeah, right. I actually
think you can do better than this with the language. It is
considered a mistake to define a word with the same word or a
different form of the word.


You do get the meaning, don't you?

Yes, but you are not necessarily talking to me. Aren't
you talking to students or potential students? I'm asking
for clarity in your description.

But I'm not so sure. "where the ski is made TO TRAVEL along"
the path described by the curve of the ski, either the sidecut
radius or as reduced by bending. The tail of the ski follows
the tip of the ski along the curved path described above.
(forget "synchronized manner".)


What are you not so sure about?

I'm not so sure about your use of the language.

A skidded turn
happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a
slightly faster rate than the tip of the ski,

That's mechanics, OK.

which causes the ski over-turn.

wrong choice of words. "over-turn" can mean either to turn too
much or tip over. Neither meaning is what you wanted.


"Over-turn," as used to describe in skiing turn, would naturally mean
"turn too much," don't you think? As you used "tip over" what "tip" do
you mean? Wrangling the words.

"Over-turn" implies "too much". What you are looking for
is the sense that the tail is turning MORE THAN the tip.
I know, it might me mincing words here, but it's the sense
that you want to convey.

tip over, turn over, go upside-down, empty the bucket.
No, I'm not "wrangling words."

You may be thinking of "over-steer" and "under-steer" as
applied to driving a car, it doesn't work for skiing.


Yup, we know how your partitioned thinking works; however, skid and
slip are actually physics terms, and the phenomena scientific facts.

Uhm, where do skid and slip enter into into under-steer and
over-steer? And I agree that skid and slip are physics terms.
They are also aerodynamics terms to define somewhat different
phenomena. But in the case you yourself have defined, skidding
and slipping are the same except for the part of the ski which
does it. In your definition, skidding is when the tail is
moving outward faster than the tip of a ski. A slip is where
the tip of a ski is moving outward slower than the tail.

The skid can be the entire turn until you set your edges
to stop turning (or initiate a skid in the opposite direction).
Or it can be the beginning of a carved arc where the skid gets
you turning in the direction you want to go, you set your edges
and apply pressure to the outside ski and carve an arc. Very
effective in the days when skis didn't have much sidecut.


Not sure what you're getting at; wherever you have your ski tail moved
faster than you ski tip during a turn, you are skidding.

I'm saying that a turn can be skidded all the way around or a
carved turn can be initiated by a skid.

And a

slipped turn is when the tip of the ski moves downhill faster than

the

tail, which straightens the curved path somewhat, is an under-turn.

I'm not sure about this. If the slip reduces the amount the
ski is turning, isn't it an "ANTI-TURN"?


Yes, as it is an "ANTI-TURN," the "line" would be straighter, thus
faster.

Then it's not a turn, why call it one? It's a "correction".

I can think of one way to make a "turn" by moving the tips.
It's called a step turn. While moving downhill, weight one
ski sufficiently so that you can pick up the other ski, tip
and all. Point the tip of the raised ski in the new direction,
put it down, weight it enough to pick up the other ski and
bring it parallel to the one moving in the new direction.
Step turn. Common in cross country skiing. May be the only
thing which will work at very low speed. Note no "slipping".

I can't imagine a
situation where allowing the tip to slip out is desirable
EXCEPT in "falling leaf" which is a survival, extreme braking
move when you are deep do do.


When you wash-out on skidding, only way to recover is to slip the tip
downhill. And when you slip the tip, the line would be straighter, so
you gain a better "downward"/"forward" speed.

Slipping the tip downhill IS washing out. The reason
it happens is because you are in the back seat.

If you perceive that you are turning or have turned too
much in a skidded turn, the correction is not to allow
the tips to wash out (because this will put you in the
back seat) but to set your edges to stop turning. This
edge set makes a perfect "platform" to initiate a turn
in the opposite direction.

What makes the carved turn so special is that, while both skidding

and

slipping rob the speed/energy of the ski, carving maintains its

turning

ability without losing its speed.

True, the carved turn itself does not cause braking. It will
help to control your speed by causing you to take a longer
path down the mountain which, by definition is a less steep
path down the mountain.


No, the carved turn slows itself down, or balances against gravity by
continuing turning uphill, yes, the longer path.

Say the same thing I did a different way. Doesn't
make either of us wrong.

The caveat is, nevertheless, that the
skier must continue to turn to carve, thus reduces the
skier's forward speed.

I'm not even going to try to translate this. You might
be saying that the longer path slows you down.


That's true, too, as the forward speed goes.

See?

Most of parallel turns are done with skidding turn, where
skidding serves dual purposes of breaking and turning.

True, especially on steeps.

Though flatboarding employs all three techniques to maintain
a proper/desired line,

Okay...


it generally utilizes flat board and slipping turn
for faster speed and straighter line downhill.

As above, I can't imagine a situation where slipping
the tips is a good thing. Further, for me to slip the
tips of my skis as described, I need to be in the back
seat. Is this what your are proposing?


You cannot slip the tips by sitting back seat; you can only do skid
with that posture. Slipping the tips is done by pressing the uphill
edges--the little toe side edge of the inside ski and the big toe side
of the outside ski--downward (away from the hill), which can only be
done with the pressure on the little ball of foot and little toe side
edge of the inside ski, which can only be done by moving your knee so
much forward to press the boot that your heel is actually suspended
inside your boot.

You can ONLY slip the tips from the back seat. If you are
in the back seat, you tips will slip (skid) because there
isn't sufficient weight on them to keep them from skidding.
If you are in a neutral to weight forward position, you
can skid your tails, easily. If you are back you can't.

Five-year-old Andrea asked, why she had to turn when she
only wanted to go there/straight?

Is it time for something a little steeper? But with a
bunny berm at the end.


That little girl, now 6, is actually a black diamond skier at the
Heavenly.

Kewl, now, how much did you bombard her with words?
Or, did you do what other instructors do with kids,
show her what works?

Interesting,
IS


My question to you is...
Why do you post these word pictures of skiing that may
or may not be accurate,


Skid, slip, and carved turn are physics terms and scientific facts;
only thing inaccurate here is your knowledge about it.

Yeah, right.

including inaccuracies in the
understanding of the language?


Spare me your comment on language, your half-baked understanding does
not impress me.

I can see that we agree to disagree. Since you seem unable
to use the language and its word meanings in a consistent
and agreed upon way, don't talk to me about "half-baked
understanding".

This is a newsgroup made
up of skiers who mostly have a decent understanding of
the mechanics and who don't need instruction at this
very elementary level.


Maybe you should go back to the basic so you may actually learn
something new?

I learn something new every day. In skiing and life.

How do you slip the tip again?

By moving my weight back, of course.

Are you trying out explanations for your teaching on us?


I am talking about how I ski, what, feel that you are been taught?

Actually I know how to ski, the impression I got was that you were
trying out your method of explanation on us.

If so, you might enlighten us


Yes, I have provided you information on these scientific facts,

You have not provided a single insight into scientific
fact. You have provided explanations that might be
useful in talking about these scientific facts to
beginners, but I really doubt it.

and ask for our input


you have no input but babbling.

Sheesh.

rather that insult us when we say you are not making
sense.


As I said, you can only be insulted by your own incompetence.


It is a sure thing that the folks who post here are not
going to adopt your method as an end-all be-all skiing
technique for ourselves.


It's your skiing, not something I care.

Then why are you trying to convince me? And the other
good skiers who read and post here?

Many of us could do perfectly
what you have shown us in your videos.


Yeah right.

Actually, you have seen nothing yet.


But why would we want to?


To enjoy the thrill of the ultimate "free" skiing?

Y'know what? I skied today. I did my "job" that I do
on a volunteer basis for the area where I "work". I
ski pretty well, I love the thrill and the freedom
that skiing gives me. I ski pretty well for an old
duffer and I can ski the legs off many people half my
age. Your method may well be of value to skiers just
beginning to get the hang of it. I've been skiing
for many more years than you've been on this earth
and while I haven't "seen it all" I've seen most of it.

Foot, OTOH, is suggesting words and methods for teaching
and is trying to convince us to teach without ego (if
indeed any of us are teachers). One of the things you
have shown us here (I said shown, not proven that you
own) is a huge ego. You have also shown us that at best
you have a barely adequate grasp of the mechanics.


That's what you said, or maybe you just don't know enough?

See above.

This last may well be a failure in language, not actual
knowledge. But the ego is still there.


Ego isn't a problem, we all have one; it is egotism that is the
problem.

Now you are mincing words. You clearly know what I'm saying.

"My way is the
only right way and you are an idiot if you don't agree."


That's your egotism talking.

Is it really?

This is what you sound like.


Egotism is one who boasts beyond one's own ability/knowledge to make
oneself [self-]important.

That's what you sound like.


IS


VtSkier

VtSkier wrote:
yunlong wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
yunlong wrote:

Based on the quality of a turn, a downhill ski turn can be
classified in three categories: carved turn, skidded turn,
and slipped turn.

Based on the "quality" of a turn? Foot, help me out here.
Quality supposes "good", "bad", and other subjective
descriptions. I think we need to get back to the mechanics
of skiing.

Fast line, smooth transition, and clean, yes, these are some
desired "quality" of a turn.

True, but not what you were talking about in the original
(your) paragraph.

So what do you think I was talking in the original (my) paragraph?


"A turn can be initiated by skidding, slipping (we are going
to have a discussion on the difference between these two,
but I think I know what you are talking about) or by rolling
the ankles and bending the ski into a 'carve'." Is this what
you want to say?

Not exactly, I was saying there are three kinds of turn in
downhill skiing, and each has its usage and shortfall.

Ok, but later on I argue that slipping, as you described
may not fit into the definition of a turn. And now I
understand why you used "quality".

A carved turn is made by the technique called "carving,"
where the ski is made traveling along the curvature of
reverse chamber of the ski without any slippage; i.e. the
tail of the ski follows the tip of the ski along the
curved path in a synchronized manner.

A carved turn is made by carving.

Exactly, I might have used "like carving a piece of wood" to
describe
it, as if you have ever done wood-carving, you'd know what that
means;
however, how many of you have ever done wood-carving?

No, you would describe/define "carving a piece of wood" as
cutting the wood in certain ways using a knife. That's
defining "carving a piece of wood". Notice that I DID NOT use
the word "carving" in the definition.

And it is no longer about skiing either.


Yeah, right. I actually
think you can do better than this with the language. It is
considered a mistake to define a word with the same word or
a different form of the word.

You do get the meaning, don't you?

Yes,

That's to say there's communication;

but you are not necessarily talking to me. Aren't
you talking to students or potential students? I'm asking
for clarity in your description.

"Get the meanings of the words, and forget about
words"--Chuang-Tzu--that's to say when the meaning of the words is
transmitted and received, the correct usage or the structure of
language is no longer important. Move on.


But I'm not so sure. "where the ski is made TO TRAVEL along"
the path described by the curve of the ski, either the
sidecut radius or as reduced by bending. The tail of the
ski follows the tip of the ski along the curved path
described above. (forget "synchronized manner".)

What are you not so sure about?

I'm not so sure about your use of the language.

I'm not here to talk about the use of English.


A skidded turn
happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a
slightly faster rate than the tip of the ski,

That's mechanics, OK.

which causes the ski over-turn.

wrong choice of words. "over-turn" can mean either to turn
too much or tip over. Neither meaning is what you wanted.

"Over-turn," as used to describe in skiing turn, would naturally
mean
"turn too much," don't you think? As you used "tip over" what "tip"
do
you mean? Wrangling the words.

"Over-turn" implies "too much".

Where did the meaning of "turn" go?

What you are looking for
is the sense that the tail is turning MORE THAN the tip.
I know, it might me mincing words here, but it's the sense
that you want to convey.

That was the sense I tried to covey,


tip over, turn over, go upside-down, empty the bucket.

it sure takes a long time for you to get the point.

No, I'm not "wrangling words."

Yes, you are "wrangling words."


You may be thinking of "over-steer" and "under-steer" as
applied to driving a car, it doesn't work for skiing.

Yup, we know how your partitioned thinking works; however, skid and
slip are actually physics terms, and the phenomena scientific
facts.

Uhm, where do skid and slip enter into into under-steer and
over-steer? And I agree that skid and slip are physics terms.
They are also aerodynamics terms to define somewhat different
phenomena.

Skid and slip are physics terms used to describe a circular motion, any
circular motion.

But in the case you yourself have defined, skidding
and slipping are the same except for the part of the ski which
does it.

Not true, not that skidding and slipping are not the same, and the
skidding and slipping I defined is consistent and works for any
circular motion.

In your definition, skidding is when the tail is
moving outward faster than the tip of a ski.

Correct.

A slip is where
the tip of a ski is moving outward slower than the tail.

Maybe you should read carefully.

No, a slip is where the tip of a ski is moving outward "faster" than
the tail.


The skid can be the entire turn until you set your edges
to stop turning (or initiate a skid in the opposite direction).
Or it can be the beginning of a carved arc where the skid gets
you turning in the direction you want to go, you set your edges
and apply pressure to the outside ski and carve an arc. Very
effective in the days when skis didn't have much sidecut.

Not sure what you're getting at; wherever you have your ski tail
moved
faster than you ski tip during a turn, you are skidding.

I'm saying that a turn can be skidded all the way around or a
carved turn can be initiated by a skid.
And a slipped turn is when the tip of the ski moves
downhill faster than the tail, which straightens the
curved path somewhat, is an under-turn.

I'm not sure about this. If the slip reduces the amount the
ski is turning, isn't it an "ANTI-TURN"?

Yes, as it is an "ANTI-TURN," the "line" would be
straighter, thus faster.

Then it's not a turn, why call it one? It's a "correction".

No, it is still a turn, as it continues to change direction and
generates a curved line.


I can think of one way to make a "turn" by moving the tips.
It's called a step turn. While moving downhill, weight one
ski sufficiently so that you can pick up the other ski, tip
and all. Point the tip of the raised ski in the new direction,
put it down, weight it enough to pick up the other ski and
bring it parallel to the one moving in the new direction.
Step turn. Common in cross country skiing. May be the only
thing which will work at very low speed. Note no "slipping".

When you "raised" the ski off the snow, the ski is no longer "working,"
yes, it is an inferior technique.


I can't imagine a
situation where allowing the tip to slip out is desirable
EXCEPT in "falling leaf" which is a survival, extreme
braking move when you are deep do do.

When you wash-out on skidding, only way to recover is to slip the
tip
downhill. And when you slip the tip, the line would be straighter,
so
you gain a better "downward"/"forward" speed.

Slipping the tip downhill IS washing out. The reason
it happens is because you are in the back seat.

Yup, you are confused slipping with skidding.


If you perceive that you are turning or have turned too
much in a skidded turn, the correction is not to allow
the tips to wash out (because this will put you in the
back seat) but to set your edges to stop turning.

No, when you skid too much, the tail wash out, and you fall backward.
As you fall backward, you are on the back seat, there's no recovery,
and that's why excess skidding is a bad practice/form.

This edge set makes a perfect "platform" to initiate a turn
in the opposite direction.

Slip the tip makes the turn quicker and more stable.


What makes the carved turn so special is that, while both skidding
and slipping rob the speed/energy of the ski, carving maintains
its turning ability without losing its speed.

True, the carved turn itself does not cause braking. It will
help to control your speed by causing you to take a longer
path down the mountain which, by definition is a less steep
path down the mountain.

No, the carved turn slows itself down, or balances against
gravity by continuing turning uphill, yes, the longer path.

Say the same thing I did a different way. Doesn't
make either of us wrong.

Longer the path, slower the forward speed.


The caveat is, nevertheless, that the
skier must continue to turn to carve, thus reduces the
skier's forward speed.

I'm not even going to try to translate this. You might
be saying that the longer path slows you down.

That's true, too, as the forward speed goes.

See?

Do you?


Most of parallel turns are done with skidding turn, where
skidding serves dual purposes of breaking and turning.

True, especially on steeps.

Though flatboarding employs all three techniques to
maintain a proper/desired line,

Okay...

it generally utilizes flat board and slipping turn
for faster speed and straighter line downhill.

As above, I can't imagine a situation where slipping
the tips is a good thing. Further, for me to slip the
tips of my skis as described, I need to be in the back
seat. Is this what your are proposing?

You cannot slip the tips by sitting back seat; you can only do skid
with that posture. Slipping the tips is done by pressing the uphill
edges--the little toe side edge of the inside ski and the big toe
side
of the outside ski--downward (away from the hill), which can only
be
done with the pressure on the little ball of foot and little toe
side
edge of the inside ski, which can only be done by moving your knee
so
much forward to press the boot that your heel is actually suspended
inside your boot.

You can ONLY slip the tips from the back seat. If you are
in the back seat, you tips will slip (skid) because there
isn't sufficient weight on them to keep them from skidding.

You are talking about skid, not slip.

If you are in a neutral to weight forward position, you
can skid your tails, easily. If you are back you can't.

I see what you are saying, I call it "wobble," which is caused by the
ski is not under [good] control, which may produce the skid or slip you
described.

However, skidding and slipping as I described are deliberately
controlled action that directs the ski to perform the function. For
which, to control/manipulate the ski, you need to put your weight on it
to make it effective.


Five-year-old Andrea asked, why she had to turn when she
only wanted to go there/straight?

Is it time for something a little steeper? But with a
bunny berm at the end.


That little girl, now 6, is actually a black diamond skier
at the Heavenly.

Kewl, now, how much did you bombard her with words?
Or, did you do what other instructors do with kids,
show her what works?

No, I didn't teach her, she skied with her parent.


Interesting,
IS


My question to you is...
Why do you post these word pictures of skiing that may
or may not be accurate,

Skid, slip, and carved turn are physics terms and scientific facts;
only thing inaccurate here is your knowledge about it.

Yeah, right.

including inaccuracies in the
understanding of the language?

Spare me your comment on language, your half-baked
understanding does not impress me.

I can see that we agree to disagree. Since you seem unable
to use the language and its word meanings in a consistent
and agreed upon way, don't talk to me about "half-baked
understanding".

So you are saying that because you don't agree with my way of using the
language that I'm unable to use the language? "half-baked
understanding" it is.


This is a newsgroup made
up of skiers who mostly have a decent understanding of
the mechanics and who don't need instruction at this
very elementary level.

Maybe you should go back to the basic so you may actually
learn something new?

I learn something new every day. In skiing and life.

How useful of that something new?


How do you slip the tip again?

By moving my weight back, of course.

That's called "wobbling."


Are you trying out explanations for your teaching on us?

I am talking about how I ski, what, feel that you are been taught?

Actually I know how to ski, the impression I got was that you
were trying out your method of explanation on us.

Not sure how do you get your impression, I'm pretty sure it's not
"method of explanation" but "explanation of method."


If so, you might enlighten us

Yes, I have provided you information on these scientific facts,

You have not provided a single insight into scientific
fact.

That's to say you are ignorant of scientific facts,

You have provided explanations that might be
useful in talking about these scientific facts to
beginners, but I really doubt it.

maybe you have yet begun to be a beginner?


and ask for our input

you have no input but babbling.

Sheesh.

Yes, you keep saying my way is for beginner as your ploy to putdown to
elevate yourself, and you don't even know how did I do it.


rather that insult us when we say you are not making
sense.

As I said, you can only be insulted by your own incompetence.

It is a sure thing that the folks who post here are not
going to adopt your method as an end-all be-all skiing
technique for ourselves.

It's your skiing, not something I care.

Then why are you trying to convince me?

Where do you get this idea? Self-important? No, I just describe how I
ski, and flatboarding is good skiing.

And the other
good skiers who read and post here?

So you think you and "the other good skiers" know everything there is
about skiing?


Many of us could do perfectly
what you have shown us in your videos.

Yeah right.

Actually, you have seen nothing yet.

But why would we want to?

To enjoy the thrill of the ultimate "free" skiing?

Y'know what? I skied today.

A Sierra-at-Tahoe checker scanned my pass couple weeks ago and
surprisingly found out I was there for 39 days for the season already,
but he didn't know I ski Heavenly most the time. I ski everyday,
almost.

I did my "job" that I do
on a volunteer basis for the area where I "work". I
ski pretty well, I love the thrill and the freedom
that skiing gives me. I ski pretty well for an old
duffer and I can ski the legs off many people half my
age.

Never did say that you cannot do that; nevertheless, flatboarding is
another story.

Your method may well be of value to skiers just
beginning to get the hang of it. I've been skiing
for many more years than you've been on this earth
and while I haven't "seen it all" I've seen most of it.

If you have skied for thirty years, you should know where I am; you
don't know/cannot see it only because your egotism.


Foot, OTOH, is suggesting words and methods for teaching
and is trying to convince us to teach without ego (if
indeed any of us are teachers). One of the things you
have shown us here (I said shown, not proven that you
own) is a huge ego. You have also shown us that at best
you have a barely adequate grasp of the mechanics.

That's what you said, or maybe you just don't know enough?

See above.

This last may well be a failure in language, not actual
knowledge. But the ego is still there.

Ego isn't a problem, we all have one; it is egotism that is
the problem.

Now you are mincing words.

No, just to make the meaning of the words more clearly.

You clearly know what I'm saying.

I know what you are trying to say, but don't think it is accurate.


"My way is the
only right way and you are an idiot if you don't agree."

That's your egotism talking.

Is it really?

Yes, you sounded like, "My way is the only right way and you are an
idiot if you don't agree."


IS


This is what you sound like.

Egotism is one who boasts beyond one's own ability/knowledge
to make oneself [self-]important.

That's what you sound like.


IS

VtSkier

yunlong wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

yunlong wrote:

VtSkier wrote:

yunlong wrote:


Based on the quality of a turn, a downhill ski turn can be
classified in three categories: carved turn, skidded turn,
and slipped turn.

Based on the "quality" of a turn? Foot, help me out here.
Quality supposes "good", "bad", and other subjective
descriptions. I think we need to get back to the mechanics
of skiing.

Fast line, smooth transition, and clean, yes, these are some
desired "quality" of a turn.

True, but not what you were talking about in the original
(your) paragraph.


So what do you think I was talking in the original (my) paragraph?

It seemed like you wanted to get at "bad", "good" and
"qualities" like that and then wanted to talk about
mechanics of skiing.

"A turn can be initiated by skidding, slipping (we are going
to have a discussion on the difference between these two,
but I think I know what you are talking about) or by rolling
the ankles and bending the ski into a 'carve'." Is this what
you want to say?

Not exactly, I was saying there are three kinds of turn in
downhill skiing, and each has its usage and shortfall.

Ok, but later on I argue that slipping, as you described
may not fit into the definition of a turn. And now I
understand why you used "quality".

A carved turn is made by the technique called "carving,"
where the ski is made traveling along the curvature of
reverse chamber of the ski without any slippage; i.e. the
tail of the ski follows the tip of the ski along the
curved path in a synchronized manner.


A carved turn is made by carving.

Exactly, I might have used "like carving a piece of wood" to

describe

it, as if you have ever done wood-carving, you'd know what that

means;

however, how many of you have ever done wood-carving?


No, you would describe/define "carving a piece of wood" as
cutting the wood in certain ways using a knife. That's
defining "carving a piece of wood". Notice that I DID NOT use
the word "carving" in the definition.


And it is no longer about skiing either.

No, it's about definitions, but you brought up wood-carving.

Yeah, right. I actually
think you can do better than this with the language. It is
considered a mistake to define a word with the same word or
a different form of the word.

You do get the meaning, don't you?


Yes,


That's to say there's communication;

Perhaps, but because I have some experience with
what you are talking about, I can make some heads
or tails of it. But I'm not a universal audience
and you would do well to keep THAT audience in mind
when you make explanations, since, as a ski teacher
those folks who have no experience are your audience.

but you are not necessarily talking to me. Aren't
you talking to students or potential students? I'm asking
for clarity in your description.


"Get the meanings of the words, and forget about
words"--Chuang-Tzu--that's to say when the meaning of the words is
transmitted and received, the correct usage or the structure of
language is no longer important. Move on.

I agree that when you can "show", "demonstrate",
even "cajole" and "physically push" a ski into the
desired position, that words become less necessary and
maybe even undesirable at times in the teaching of
something (skiing in this case). But here we are
required to use language in a manner that is
consistent and non-confusing. Because of this
correct usage AND structure are vitally important.

Your statement above is a lame attempt to weasel
out of statements made by you that don't hold water.

In fact the quote you used I would interpret a
slightly different way. I might say that Chuang-Tzu
is telling us to listen to the explanation and
then do the task. No more, no less. Once you can
do the task, the words (explanation) are unnecessary.

But I'm not so sure. "where the ski is made TO TRAVEL along"
the path described by the curve of the ski, either the
sidecut radius or as reduced by bending. The tail of the
ski follows the tip of the ski along the curved path
described above. (forget "synchronized manner".)

What are you not so sure about?


I'm not so sure about your use of the language.


I'm not here to talk about the use of English.

But you are speaking English, or sort of anyway.

A skidded turn
happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a
slightly faster rate than the tip of the ski,

That's mechanics, OK.

which causes the ski over-turn.

wrong choice of words. "over-turn" can mean either to turn
too much or tip over. Neither meaning is what you wanted.

"Over-turn," as used to describe in skiing turn, would naturally

mean

"turn too much," don't you think? As you used "tip over" what "tip"

do

you mean? Wrangling the words.


"Over-turn" implies "too much".


Where did the meaning of "turn" go?


What you are looking for
is the sense that the tail is turning MORE THAN the tip.
I know, it might me mincing words here, but it's the sense
that you want to convey.


That was the sense I tried to covey,

but your words didn't convey this sense.

tip over, turn over, go upside-down, empty the bucket.


it sure takes a long time for you to get the point.

I'm not going to rise to this one.

No, I'm not "wrangling words."


Yes, you are "wrangling words."


You may be thinking of "over-steer" and "under-steer" as
applied to driving a car, it doesn't work for skiing.
Yup, we know how your partitioned thinking works; however, skid and
slip are actually physics terms, and the phenomena scientific

facts.

Uhm, where do skid and slip enter into into under-steer and
over-steer? And I agree that skid and slip are physics terms.
They are also aerodynamics terms to define somewhat different
phenomena.


Skid and slip are physics terms used to describe a circular motion, any
circular motion.

Oh, yeah? You'd better find THAT definition for me.
Also if both words are used to describe a "circular
motion, any circular motion." Then don't they both
mean the same thing? I also challenge your definition
of skid and slip meaning circular motion. You may
find it somewhere in some physics text, but I insist
on a common usage dictionary definition since you
didn't set up this "circular motion" definition at
the beginning of your screed.

But in the case you yourself have defined, skidding
and slipping are the same except for the part of the ski which
does it.


Not true, not that skidding and slipping are not the same, and the
skidding and slipping I defined is consistent and works for any
circular motion.

Yes it is true. Try reading what you write.

In your definition, skidding is when the tail is
moving outward faster than the tip of a ski.


Correct.


A slip is where
the tip of a ski is moving outward slower than the tail.


Maybe you should read carefully.

No, a slip is where the tip of a ski is moving outward "faster" than
the tail.

Talk about me wrangling words.

The skid can be the entire turn until you set your edges
to stop turning (or initiate a skid in the opposite direction).
Or it can be the beginning of a carved arc where the skid gets
you turning in the direction you want to go, you set your edges
and apply pressure to the outside ski and carve an arc. Very
effective in the days when skis didn't have much sidecut.

Not sure what you're getting at; wherever you have your ski tail

moved

faster than you ski tip during a turn, you are skidding.


I'm saying that a turn can be skidded all the way around or a
carved turn can be initiated by a skid.

And a slipped turn is when the tip of the ski moves
downhill faster than the tail, which straightens the
curved path somewhat, is an under-turn.


I'm not sure about this. If the slip reduces the amount the
ski is turning, isn't it an "ANTI-TURN"?

Yes, as it is an "ANTI-TURN," the "line" would be
straighter, thus faster.


Then it's not a turn, why call it one? It's a "correction".


No, it is still a turn, as it continues to change direction and
generates a curved line.



I can think of one way to make a "turn" by moving the tips.
It's called a step turn. While moving downhill, weight one
ski sufficiently so that you can pick up the other ski, tip
and all. Point the tip of the raised ski in the new direction,
put it down, weight it enough to pick up the other ski and
bring it parallel to the one moving in the new direction.
Step turn. Common in cross country skiing. May be the only
thing which will work at very low speed. Note no "slipping".


When you "raised" the ski off the snow, the ski is no longer "working,"
yes, it is an inferior technique.


I can't imagine a
situation where allowing the tip to slip out is desirable
EXCEPT in "falling leaf" which is a survival, extreme
braking move when you are deep do do.

When you wash-out on skidding, only way to recover is to slip the

tip

downhill. And when you slip the tip, the line would be straighter,

so

you gain a better "downward"/"forward" speed.


Slipping the tip downhill IS washing out. The reason
it happens is because you are in the back seat.


Yup, you are confused slipping with skidding.


If you perceive that you are turning or have turned too
much in a skidded turn, the correction is not to allow
the tips to wash out (because this will put you in the
back seat) but to set your edges to stop turning.


No, when you skid too much, the tail wash out, and you fall backward.
As you fall backward, you are on the back seat, there's no recovery,
and that's why excess skidding is a bad practice/form.


This edge set makes a perfect "platform" to initiate a turn
in the opposite direction.


Slip the tip makes the turn quicker and more stable.


What makes the carved turn so special is that, while both skidding
and slipping rob the speed/energy of the ski, carving maintains
its turning ability without losing its speed.

True, the carved turn itself does not cause braking. It will
help to control your speed by causing you to take a longer
path down the mountain which, by definition is a less steep
path down the mountain.

No, the carved turn slows itself down, or balances against
gravity by continuing turning uphill, yes, the longer path.


Say the same thing I did a different way. Doesn't
make either of us wrong.


Longer the path, slower the forward speed.

Longer the path AND the less the slope, the
slower the forward speed.

The caveat is, nevertheless, that the
skier must continue to turn to carve, thus reduces the
skier's forward speed.

I'm not even going to try to translate this. You might
be saying that the longer path slows you down.

That's true, too, as the forward speed goes.


See?


Do you?

Yes

Most of parallel turns are done with skidding turn, where
skidding serves dual purposes of breaking and turning.

True, especially on steeps.


Though flatboarding employs all three techniques to
maintain a proper/desired line,

Okay...


it generally utilizes flat board and slipping turn
for faster speed and straighter line downhill.

As above, I can't imagine a situation where slipping
the tips is a good thing. Further, for me to slip the
tips of my skis as described, I need to be in the back
seat. Is this what your are proposing?

You cannot slip the tips by sitting back seat; you can only do skid
with that posture. Slipping the tips is done by pressing the uphill
edges--the little toe side edge of the inside ski and the big toe

side

of the outside ski--downward (away from the hill), which can only

be

done with the pressure on the little ball of foot and little toe

side

edge of the inside ski, which can only be done by moving your knee

so

much forward to press the boot that your heel is actually suspended
inside your boot.


You can ONLY slip the tips from the back seat. If you are
in the back seat, you tips will slip (skid) because there
isn't sufficient weight on them to keep them from skidding.


You are talking about skid, not slip.

You can only slip, as you have defined it, from the
backseat. Yes, your tails can wash out. Here in the east
it's common enough from hitting ice. If you allow the
washing out tails to put you into the backseat, which
is a very real possibility, you are in grave danger of
not being able to make the next turn in the opposite
direction and could well not be able to avoid some
obstacle. Being in the back seat is always BAD (sorry
for the subjective word, Foot).

If you are in a neutral to weight forward position, you
can skid your tails, easily. If you are back you can't.


I see what you are saying, I call it "wobble," which is caused by the
ski is not under [good] control, which may produce the skid or slip you
described.

However, skidding and slipping as I described are deliberately
controlled action that directs the ski to perform the function. For
which, to control/manipulate the ski, you need to put your weight on it
to make it effective.


Five-year-old Andrea asked, why she had to turn when she
only wanted to go there/straight?

Is it time for something a little steeper? But with a
bunny berm at the end.


That little girl, now 6, is actually a black diamond skier
at the Heavenly.


Kewl, now, how much did you bombard her with words?
Or, did you do what other instructors do with kids,
show her what works?


No, I didn't teach her, she skied with her parent.


Interesting,
IS


My question to you is...
Why do you post these word pictures of skiing that may
or may not be accurate,

Skid, slip, and carved turn are physics terms and scientific facts;
only thing inaccurate here is your knowledge about it.


Yeah, right.

including inaccuracies in the
understanding of the language?

Spare me your comment on language, your half-baked
understanding does not impress me.


I can see that we agree to disagree. Since you seem unable
to use the language and its word meanings in a consistent
and agreed upon way, don't talk to me about "half-baked
understanding".


So you are saying that because you don't agree with my way of using the
language that I'm unable to use the language? "half-baked
understanding" it is.

As discussed above, you MUST NOT use words in any other
than their common usage definition UNLESS you give your
definitions first. I agree that you DID define "slip" as
something different that "skid" and have used your
definition throughout our discussion. I do not agree that
"slip" as you defined it is a desirable way to turn nor
that it is even a turn.


This is a newsgroup made
up of skiers who mostly have a decent understanding of
the mechanics and who don't need instruction at this
very elementary level.

Maybe you should go back to the basic so you may actually
learn something new?

I learn something new every day. In skiing and life.


How useful of that something new?


How do you slip the tip again?


By moving my weight back, of course.


That's called "wobbling."

No, it's called getting into the back seat.
Wobbling is what my skis do when they are
trying to move forward in a straight line
with my weight back. From that back seat
position, I can make the tips "slip" in a way
that reduces the radius of a turn that *I
am already making.*

Are you trying out explanations for your teaching on us?

I am talking about how I ski, what, feel that you are been taught?


Actually I know how to ski, the impression I got was that you
were trying out your method of explanation on us.


Not sure how do you get your impression, I'm pretty sure it's not
"method of explanation" but "explanation of method."

I have disagreed that your method of skiing is anything
special, new or even desirable. I have not disagreed that
you may be a successful ski teacher. Your explanations of
method haven't shown me a thing as I have tried to fathom
what you are talking about. Therefore I got the impression
that you were/are trying out explanations of how you
ski/teach on us.

If so, you might enlighten us

Yes, I have provided you information on these scientific facts,


You have not provided a single insight into scientific
fact.


That's to say you are ignorant of scientific facts,

I am hardly ignorant of scientific facts as
they relate to the mechanics of skiing.

You have provided explanations that might be
useful in talking about these scientific facts to
beginners, but I really doubt it.


maybe you have yet begun to be a beginner?


and ask for our input

you have no input but babbling.


Sheesh.


Yes, you keep saying my way is for beginner as your ploy to putdown to
elevate yourself, and you don't even know how did I do it.

If I don't know how you do it, then you haven't explained
yourself very well, have you?

rather that insult us when we say you are not making
sense.

As I said, you can only be insulted by your own incompetence.


It is a sure thing that the folks who post here are not
going to adopt your method as an end-all be-all skiing
technique for ourselves.

It's your skiing, not something I care.


Then why are you trying to convince me?


Where do you get this idea? Self-important? No, I just describe how I
ski, and flatboarding is good skiing.

As you have described it, and even what you have shown
us in pictures and videos, it sure is not good skiing.

And the other
good skiers who read and post here?


So you think you and "the other good skiers" know everything there is
about skiing?

No, of course not, but we don't pretend to as you seem to do.

Many of us could do perfectly
what you have shown us in your videos.

Yeah right.

Actually, you have seen nothing yet.


But why would we want to?

To enjoy the thrill of the ultimate "free" skiing?


Y'know what? I skied today.


A Sierra-at-Tahoe checker scanned my pass couple weeks ago and
surprisingly found out I was there for 39 days for the season already,
but he didn't know I ski Heavenly most the time. I ski everyday,
almost.


I did my "job" that I do
on a volunteer basis for the area where I "work". I
ski pretty well, I love the thrill and the freedom
that skiing gives me. I ski pretty well for an old
duffer and I can ski the legs off many people half my
age.


Never did say that you cannot do that; nevertheless, flatboarding is
another story.

No, I don't believe that flatboarding IS another
story. That's part of my disagreement with you.
You might go back and look at some of the footage
taken of so-called "ballet skier" in the 70's
Suzi Chaffee comes to mind. You might remember
Suzi Chapstick.

Your method may well be of value to skiers just
beginning to get the hang of it. I've been skiing
for many more years than you've been on this earth
and while I haven't "seen it all" I've seen most of it.


If you have skied for thirty years, you should know where I am; you
don't know/cannot see it only because your egotism.

I've got a few more years than that.

Foot, OTOH, is suggesting words and methods for teaching
and is trying to convince us to teach without ego (if
indeed any of us are teachers). One of the things you
have shown us here (I said shown, not proven that you
own) is a huge ego. You have also shown us that at best
you have a barely adequate grasp of the mechanics.

That's what you said, or maybe you just don't know enough?


See above.

This last may well be a failure in language, not actual
knowledge. But the ego is still there.

Ego isn't a problem, we all have one; it is egotism that is
the problem.


Now you are mincing words.


No, just to make the meaning of the words more clearly.


You clearly know what I'm saying.


I know what you are trying to say, but don't think it is accurate.

Your opinion, you may certainly have that. As I am
welcome to my opinion. I'd suggest that you go back
and read some of Foot2Foot's posts regarding taking
the ego/egotism out of the language a ski teacher
uses. It may not be possible for all of us, I certainly
use judgment language (it's bad to be in the back
seat), but maybe I should say move your hands forward
so you won't be in the back seat. I think foot may
have overstated a bit, but I also think he has a lot
of good things to add to a ski discussion, particularly
about teaching and getting ideas across to less than
expert skiers.

"My way is the
only right way and you are an idiot if you don't agree."

That's your egotism talking.


Is it really?


Yes, you sounded like, "My way is the only right way and you are an
idiot if you don't agree."

I think you did a little judicious snipping here and there.


IS


This is what you sound like.

Egotism is one who boasts beyond one's own ability/knowledge
to make oneself [self-]important.

That's what you sound like.


IS


VtSkier

"yunlong" wrote info for beginners in
message.

snipped all the raving of a sock puppet about beginner skiing..
from a novice instructor who never took a lesson.

yunlong wrote:

VtSkier wrote:

yunlong wrote:

and so on...

(snip)

You said:

My errors are in language, and your errors are on the
principle of skiing; my errors won't affect my skiing much,
not sure about your predicament though.


And I agree fully with this statement of yours. Your errors
have been in language and in your ability to accurately
and consistently convey your thoughts and ideas about skiing
in WORDS.


That is not it; those are only your confusion. My mistake is in my
Chinese English, as Chinese speech/structure pattern is different from
English, and through the translation the language may be sounded
differently from a native English speaker. Nevertheless, I do believe
I've presented an accurate and consistent idea on what I was saying.

Yes, I can see some other syntax getting into your writing.
Presumably it's Chinese. But I could probably get around that
if you demonstrated a command of vocabulary and idiom, which
you don't. We won't even talk about grammar because meaning
can be determined without the writer adhering to strict
grammatical rules, which again you don't.

Both skidding and slipping are defined in the top post.

OK, I'll concede this one. You did define skid and slip in
the beginning of your post. You defined skid as the tails of
the skis moving faster (rotationally) than the tips and you
defined slip as the tips moving faster (rotationally) than
the tails. What you didn't do was define specifically "slip"
as used in an aeronautical sense at the outset.

What I objected to was that I didn't believe that "slip" as
you defined it was a kind of turn in skiing. You didn't define
it that way in 2001 and I didn't think you should have defined
it that way in this thread. I also didn't think that "slip"
was/is appropriate as you describe it because of what is
necessary to make the ski "slip" as you describe it.

Further:
As a technical
discussion, you would try to duplicate the moves according the
description

What makes you think I haven't made the moves as you describe?
The only way I can make my skis "slip" as you describe is to
be in the back seat. At any kind of speed, this is counterproductive.

As I pointed out, I can make my skis "slip" from a position
standing across the fall line by flattening my skis and shifting
my weight back toward the tail of my skis.

I can also do this from a turning maneuver by going back and
flattening my skis if I am carving, they are fairly flat if
my turn is a skidding one. This has the effect of increasing
the radius of my original turn, and giving me a feeling of
loss of control. I will immediately get my weight forward to
regain a feeling of control and if I need to change the radius
of my turn, do something else.

and produce a result to see if the description is correct
or not, and that is called "independent scientific investigation."

Apparently I did this.

Instead, you ranted with your misinterpreted terms, cannot explain
them, and cannot demonstrate them,

I believe I interpreted you terms correctly. Or at best I understood
the words you used, if indeed you really used the words you wanted
to use to have me understand your meaning. I think in the case of
"slip" I do understand what you are/were saying.

but think you have known all? Yup,

I don't really think so.

that's called a "hypocritical little knowledge."

Your words, your accusation. My words and my actions
speak for themselves. Others here have skied with me
and have some judgment of my ability.

As I have said repeatedly, I have no real quarrel
with your ability to ski or even to teach skiing since I have
absolutely no way of knowing what you can do other than your
WORDS.

Cannot cross-reference for your "absolutely no way of knowing," eh?

What does this sentence mean in the context of what I wrote?

But nevertheless you rip my skiing as for beginners and no good for you
advanced skiers because "somebody has done it before" yet cannot do it
yourself? Yup, that's called a "hypocritical small mind."

Rip your skiing, eh? You presented your "Flat Boarding" here
as something new and wonderful. I, and others, pointed out to
you that you hadn't invented a thing. And, yes, I can do it
myself.

Begin quoted material: yunlong in Flat-Boarding II
================================================== ==========
Now there's even simpler/easier way to ski:

From "Flat-Boarding" we've learned that "On two skis, when they are
held parallel and equally weighed, they will run straight. If one ski
is weighed more than the other ski, they will turn (changing direction)
to the weighed-ski side if the turning balance is maintained." To weigh
on the ski is the "cross-over," one of the most difficult concept and
technique to comprehend and to achieve in high-level downhill skiing,
where the conventional (pole-planting) parallel skiing techniques
employ four distinct steps (1. pole-plant, 2. unweigh, 3. change
direction, and 4. traverse) to achieve it.

The new way? Bleed the speed of the inside ski by slipping the
"outside" edge of the inside ski (which would scrape the snow downward
a bit thus slow down the ski), and the other ski, now is "outside" ski,
goes faster, so would push both ski to change the direction, and if the
same force is maintained, the turning would continue. The "cross-over"
is now simply to stand/weigh on the inside ski. By maintaining 50/50
balance on both skis, the skis "track" "straight" again.
Fun stuff,
IS
================================================== ==========
End quoted material

Many of us recognized that there was nothing "new" here. In fact, as
I reread it, there are problems with language that we had discussed
earlier that also brought up confusion and questions about what you
were trying to say.

(snip a little more)

The following reply to my statement has absolutely no
meaning in the context of what I said:

For context you have to know the reason behind the text.

I wrote, "Otherwise you are 'preaching to the choir' which
is know to be a waste of time."

And you replied, "You may gold-plate your face, it is not
something I care."

You were speculating that you were so important that I needed to spend
my energy to "preach" you to get your acceptance?

The context of my statement had to do with why your were
trying to convince us about your skiing technique.

"Preaching to the choir" is an American idiom which means
that the speaker is talking about something the listener
already believes and so the speaking is a waste of time.

You are speaking to generally accomplished skiers here. You
are describing methods (with some reservations about
appropriateness of method) that is best used to teach
beginners through probably intermediate skiers. If you are
not talking to us about teaching, we can already ski, and
most of us quite well, why are you talking to us about it?

I have described a theory in skiing technique and how I do with it in a
public discussion forum, you don't like it because you cannot get a
grip on it, and my explanations become a "preach" to you? You think
that you own this newsgroup?

You are describing a theory of teaching/learning skiing and how
you do it. In many areas I have no quarrel with you. In a few
areas I do have issues with you. Your choice of words and not
using them in a conventional, common usage way without first
telling us how you are using them is one area. When your are
asked what you mean, and you reply that my understanding is at
fault for needing to ask, and I'm arrogant or stupid for asking
is another area. It took a great deal of time to get you to
tell us that you were using "slip" in the aeronautical sense.
This sense is NOT common usage, or even scientific for that
matter. It is jargon of a specific field.

This is somewhat typical of many of your rebuttals. It has
no contextual meaning. Why did you write this?

To say only an incompetent person needs to gold-plate its face to
glorify itself, to be self-importance, a Chinese proverb.

So clearly you didn't understand the idiom.

(snip some more)

I also think that your writing here is to elevate yourself
in the eyes of someone who might be wanting to take lessons
from someone who can teach them with some new "magic bullet"
technique that will make them expert skiers overnight.

Not overnight, nevertheless, it will definitely make them a
better skier.


Okay, if this is your aim, AND you want to use WORDS to
convey your thoughts, It is important that you do so in
a coherent and consistent way.

Here you go again to say/imply my WORDS are inferior but you don't
really how or what words I use when I teach.

You are a bull****.

You said your words are inferior, I only said they were
unclear. And I've been called worse. See what Scooter
says about me.

(and snip the rest)

VtSkier

VtSkier wrote:
yunlong wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
yunlong wrote:

and so on...

(snip)

You said:

My errors are in language, and your errors are on the
principle of skiing; my errors won't affect my skiing
much, not sure about your predicament though.


And I agree fully with this statement of yours. Your
errors have been in language and in your ability to
accurately and consistently convey your thoughts and ideas
about skiing in WORDS.

That is not it; those are only your confusion. My mistake
is in my Chinese English, as Chinese speech/structure
pattern is different from English, and through the
translation the language may be sounded differently from a
native English speaker. Nevertheless, I do believe I've
presented an accurate and consistent idea on what I was saying.

Yes, I can see some other syntax getting into your writing.
Presumably it's Chinese. But I could probably get around that
if you demonstrated a command of vocabulary and idiom, which
you don't.

I used a common language vocabulary, which can be found in an ordinary
dictionary, and you wrangled the meaning on terminology, in your
partitioned thinking, you don't see eye to eye.

We won't even talk about grammar because meaning
can be determined without the writer adhering to strict
grammatical rules, which again you don't.

If you think your grammar is the only way to use English, you are sadly
mistaken. Actually, that is what reflected as little knowledge.

"Professor C. C. Fries, one of our leading 'liberal' English teachers,
once told his students that there was no such rule as 'Never use a
preposition at the end of a sentence.' (Actually, it is an superstition
based on the Latin derivation of the word preposition.) 'Do you mean to
say that the rule has been changed?' a student spoke up. 'Changed? No,'
Professor Fries answered. 'Who would have the authority to make or
change such a rule?' 'Why,' the student stammered, "whoever deals with
these things...the authorities...the experts...the English Teachers
Association...' 'That would be the National Council of Teachers of
English,' said Professor Fries. 'Well, if they issued any rules lately,
I ought to know about it. I am president.'"

"It is well to remember that grammar is common speech formulated. Usage
is the only test. I would prefer a phrase that was easy and unaffected
to a phrase that was grammatical."--W. Somerset Maugham--

Above quotes are quoted from "The Art of Readable Writing" by Rudolf
Flesch.

Words, as well as a grammar, have no means by themselves as they are
only device/structure that we use to carry the meanings of the words;
in other words, words, like finger pointing, are used to point to where
the true meaning can be found. That's to say if you just look at the
finger, you won't find the meaning it pointed.


Both skidding and slipping are defined in the top post.

OK, I'll concede this one. You did define skid and slip in
the beginning of your post. You defined skid as the tails of
the skis moving faster (rotationally) than the tips and you
defined slip as the tips moving faster (rotationally) than
the tails.

I'm not sure "rotationally" is the right word, slipping the tip only
makes the ski/er "turns" less. That's to say when you interject an
unconfirmed idea with your thinking, you'd distort the true picture.

What you didn't do was define specifically "slip"
as used in an aeronautical sense at the outset.

You may know how to use English grammar, but lacked of discipline on
how to make a technical discussion. I have defined/described the "slip"
using a common language that is not aeronautical specify.


What I objected to was that I didn't believe that "slip" as
you defined it was a kind of turn in skiing.

What you "didn't believe" doesn't not make a legitimate argument; you
have to prove that the "slip" as I defined is invalid to make the
argument. You are unable to do that.

You didn't define it that way in 2001

I still carved my turns in 2001.

and I didn't think you should have defined
it that way in this thread. I also didn't think that "slip"
was/is appropriate as you describe it because of what is
necessary to make the ski "slip" as you describe it.

Again, what you "didn't think" doesn't not make a legitimate
argument...

What you unable to do doesn't invalidate a valid theory.


Further:
As a technical
discussion, you would try to duplicate the moves according
the description

What makes you think I haven't made the moves as you describe?
The only way I can make my skis "slip" as you describe is to
be in the back seat. At any kind of speed, this is counterproductive.

"You cannot slip the tips by sitting back seat; you can only do skid
with that posture. Slipping the tips is done by pressing the uphill
edges--the little toe side edge of the inside ski and the big toe side
of the outside ski--downward (away from the hill), which can only be
done with the pressure on the little ball of foot and little toe side
edge of the inside ski, which can only be done by moving your knee so
much forward to press the boot that your heel is actually suspended
inside your boot."--my post, feb 10 2005--

The "slip" by my definition requires you to put your weight forward to
the little ball/toe of the inside ski; we'd talk about your
"counterproductive" when you can do that.


As I pointed out, I can make my skis "slip" from a position
standing across the fall line by flattening my skis and
shifting my weight back toward the tail of my skis.

Yup, that's a passive technique; I'd have slipped tips downhill and got
going already.


I can also do this from a turning maneuver by going back and
flattening my skis if I am carving, they are fairly flat if
my turn is a skidding one. This has the effect of increasing
the radius of my original turn, and giving me a feeling of
loss of control.

"Flat-feeling"? that's the moment of flatboarding;

I will immediately get my weight forward to
regain a feeling of control

I would "hang ten" at that moment;

and if I need to change the radius
of my turn, do something else.

I skid the tails to go/turn uphill and slip the tips to go/turn
downhill.


and produce a result to see if the description is correct
or not, and that is called "independent scientific investigation."

Apparently I did this.

I did say that you lacked of scientific discipline to do it correctly.


Instead, you ranted with your misinterpreted terms, cannot
explain them, and cannot demonstrate them,

I believe I interpreted you terms correctly. Or at best I
understood the words you used, if indeed you really used the
words you wanted to use to have me understand your meaning. I
think in the case of "slip" I do understand what you are/were saying.

You may "understand" it, but apparently, wrong.


but think you have known all? Yup,

I don't really think so.

that's called a "hypocritical little knowledge."

Your words, your accusation.

I don't make accusation, just state the observed facts.

My words and my actions
speak for themselves. Others here have skied with me
and have some judgment of my ability.

No wonder you took so personally, but no, that was not what I was
talking about; I was here talking about a theory in skiing, NOT how you
ski.


As I have said repeatedly, I have no real quarrel
with your ability to ski or even to teach skiing since I
have absolutely no way of knowing what you can do other
than your WORDS.

Cannot cross-reference for your "absolutely no way of knowing,"
eh?

What does this sentence mean in the context of what I wrote?

"Cross-reference" with something other than the WORDS that you couldn't
fathom, like, what kind of skiing you have done in past thirty years in
comparison of the experience I have described to get a sense/know of
what I was talking about?


But nevertheless you rip my skiing as for beginners and no
good for you advanced skiers because "somebody has done it
before" yet cannot do it yourself? Yup, that's called a
"hypocritical small mind."

Rip your skiing, eh? You presented your "Flat Boarding" here
as something new and wonderful. I, and others, pointed out to
you that you hadn't invented a thing.

Yup, it must be, otherwise, you, and others, would not have jumped all
over the places.

And, yes, I can do it myself.

Really? You couldn't even get the definitions straight, but think you
can do it?

Ok, how do you do a flat-spin [on the ground], again?


Begin quoted material: yunlong in Flat-Boarding II
================================================== ==========
Now there's even simpler/easier way to ski:

From "Flat-Boarding" we've learned that "On two skis, when they are
held parallel and equally weighed, they will run straight. If one ski
is weighed more than the other ski, they will turn (changing
direction)
to the weighed-ski side if the turning balance is maintained." To
weigh
on the ski is the "cross-over," one of the most difficult concept and
technique to comprehend and to achieve in high-level downhill skiing,
where the conventional (pole-planting) parallel skiing techniques
employ four distinct steps (1. pole-plant, 2. unweigh, 3. change
direction, and 4. traverse) to achieve it.

The new way? Bleed the speed of the inside ski by slipping the
"outside" edge of the inside ski (which would scrape the snow
downward
a bit thus slow down the ski), and the other ski, now is "outside"
ski,
goes faster, so would push both ski to change the direction, and if
the
same force is maintained, the turning would continue. The
"cross-over"
is now simply to stand/weigh on the inside ski. By maintaining 50/50
balance on both skis, the skis "track" "straight" again.
Fun stuff,
IS
================================================== ==========
End quoted material

Many of us recognized that there was nothing "new" here.

Nothing "new," nevertheless, you still don't know how I ski.

In fact, as I reread it, there are problems with language that
we had discussed earlier that also brought up confusion and
questions about what you were trying to say.

That's because your own biased thinking confused you.


(snip a little more)

The following reply to my statement has absolutely no
meaning in the context of what I said:

For context you have to know the reason behind the text.

I wrote, "Otherwise you are 'preaching to the choir' which
is know to be a waste of time."

And you replied, "You may gold-plate your face, it is not
something I care."

You were speculating that you were so important that I needed to
spend
my energy to "preach" you to get your acceptance?

The context of my statement had to do with why your were
trying to convince us about your skiing technique.

No, you got that backward; I wrote an idea so-called new "way" [we may
get into that later] of skiing, but you tried to "convince"/bash me
that my way is no good.


"Preaching to the choir" is an American idiom which means
that the speaker is talking about something the listener
already believes and so the speaking is a waste of time.

"the listener already believes"? Wow, when did that happen? Or you
don't "understand" how idiom works?


You are speaking to generally accomplished skiers here. You
are describing methods (with some reservations about
appropriateness of method) that is best used to teach
beginners through probably intermediate skiers.

Flatboarding is an advanced technique even to "advanced skiers," try a
skiers X trail sometime.

If you are
not talking to us about teaching, we can already ski, and
most of us quite well, why are you talking to us about it?

To ski better, to reach the perfection, flatboarding is not just about
the skiing techniques but the "Way" of skiing that brings the skier to
a deeper realm of the reality, a state called Unism,
"unified/harmonized mind and body," and to be "one with gravity."


I have described a theory in skiing technique and how I do with it
in a
public discussion forum, you don't like it because you cannot get
a
grip on it, and my explanations become a "preach" to you? You
think
that you own this newsgroup?

You are describing a theory of teaching/learning skiing and
how you do it. In many areas I have no quarrel with you. In a
few areas I do have issues with you. Your choice of words and
not using them in a conventional, common usage way without
first telling us how you are using them is one area. When your
are asked what you mean, and you reply that my understanding
is at fault for needing to ask, and I'm arrogant or stupid for
asking is another area.

If you had asked, you would get your answer; if you whip, you get
whiplash. I did tell you that.

It took a great deal of time to get
you to tell us that you were using "slip" in the aeronautical
sense.

Ok, which of the following words is aeronautical specify? "A skidded
turn happens when the tail of the ski moves downhill with a slightly
faster rate than the tip of the ski, which causes the ski over-turn.
And a slipped turn is when the tip of the ski moves downhill faster
than the tail, which straightens the curved path somewhat, is an
under-turn."

This sense is NOT common usage, or even scientific for
that matter. It is jargon of a specific field.

It is more like that you are using the jargon without knowing the
contents of it, and get confused about.


This is somewhat typical of many of your rebuttals. It has
no contextual meaning. Why did you write this?

To say only an incompetent person needs to gold-plate its
face to glorify itself, to be self-importance, a Chinese proverb.

So clearly you didn't understand the idiom.

Need more gold-color?


(snip some more)

I also think that your writing here is to elevate
yourself in the eyes of someone who might be wanting
to take lessons from someone who can teach them with
some new "magic bullet" technique that will make them
expert skiers overnight.

Not overnight, nevertheless, it will definitely make
them a better skier.


Okay, if this is your aim, AND you want to use WORDS to
convey your thoughts, It is important that you do so in
a coherent and consistent way.

Here you go again to say/imply my WORDS are inferior but
you don't really how or what words I use when I teach.

You are a bull****.

You said your words are inferior, I only said they were
unclear.

Misread and miswrite make up miss matched mind and body, I guess.

And I've been called worse. See what Scooter
says about me.

I don't call name, just state the fact.


(and snip the rest)

My question to you is...
Why do you argument about the "right way" of using English that may or
may not be accurate such extensively in a newsgroup that is for skiers
talk about skiing?


IS


VtSkier