Jackson Hole Sucks

In article ,
wrote:
Kurt Knisely wrote:

Scratch that. Nothing ever adds up from these things (accidents).

It *always* adds up.

We were not there and I don't even know what the peak looks like.

You don't have to be there, to know, it all added up and happened
exactly and perfectly like it should have. That's cause and
effect. The connection between cause and effect may not be clear,
especially up front, but contrary to popular belief, **** doesn't just
happen, it's caused.


Okay boys, I think we're off on a tangent. I agree that the factors that
contributed to the slide added up. I am saying that the element of
analyzing how, phenomenologically, the buried surface hoar was created is
not important. The facts that (1) it is there, (2) it is likely to
remain there, and (3) it will be a weak layer are. This is still in
direct contradiction to what Kurt wrote, at least as I read it.

cheers,
john (gosh, klaus, this really is more fun than watching football g)

In article ,
wrote:
Alex Heney wrote:
: I still can't get used to you 'merkans calling it just "football". To
: us, that means the *original* football - known to you as "soccer".

: I know none of you intend it that way, it's what you have grown up
: with, but it does somehow *feel* arrogant for you to disregard what
: all the rest of the world calls football, for your own parochial game,
: which everyone else calls "American football".

My, I'm just Mr. Chatty these days. My recollection is that "soccer"
came from a 'football' club in England that was called the Association
of something, abbreviated Assoc., thus 'soccer'. But the Brits
gave up on that name, I guess. Obviously whoever invented American
Football had a certain poverty of the imagination, since "football"
clearly better fits what we call soccer.


To answer both of your fellows: American football was never "invented", it
evolved from another sport invented in merry olde England: rugby football.
With this in mind, it's easy to see why it was reduced to just football.

As far as I've ever heard, there was no hidden agenda to preclude the
existence or acknowledgement of other versions of football from the mix of
world sport.

cheers,
john

In article ,
se wrote:

If you know how it got there, you (1) know it's there. (2) can predict that it
will occur again some year (after weeks of high pressure) (3) Something we
never covered--it's very fragile, a good wind or some rain or lots of sunlight
will destroy it (no sunlight on N. slopes)., therefore you have a good idea of
*where* it will be.


But I *already* have information that tells me it's there, buried in the
snowpack: (1) I've seen it formed on the surface immediately prior to a
snowfall; (2) I've dug pits in similar exposures; or (3) I've read an avy
report, ad infinitum. That was definitely the case in the example that
you cited; it was also the case in British Columbia last year...

Besides, case (3) in your paragraph reinforces my point. The responses
you cite are empirical. I can read one book and know them, and I do not
need to understand the precise physical processes underlying them. Thanks
for your help.

cheers,
john

John Red-Horse wrote:

As far as I've ever heard, there was no hidden agenda to preclude the
existence or acknowledgement of other versions of football from the mix of
world sport.

You never heard because you are not a member of the outer circle of the
conspiracy, managed by the inner cartel, controlled by the central
cabal. The Gnomes of Switzerland transferred themselves to Wall Street
in 1874. Immediately foreseeing that the coming European union and
European common currency would become a threat to their hegemony, they
developed a long range plan to demoralize the world by diminishing the
world's chosen sport by absconding with its very name.

Oops; I hear a knock at the door - you don't think they're coming for
me, do you? I take it all back. I was only kidding. It's all nonsense!
Forget I ever said anything!

John Red-Horse wrote:

john (gosh, klaus, this really is more fun than watching football g)

Root canals are more fun than watching football.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== =
"I love deadlines... especially the whooshing sound
they make as they go by." -Douglas Adams

The Real Bev wrote:
John Red-Horse wrote:


john (gosh, klaus, this really is more fun than watching football g)


Root canals are more fun than watching football.

Hey! Any excuse to sit in the sun and drink.

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:02:42 -0800, "Richard Henry"
wrote:


"Alex Heney" wrote in message
.. .

I still can't get used to you 'merkans calling it just "football". To
us, that means the *original* football - known to you as "soccer".

I thought the origianl football was now called "rugby".

Of course even ruggers have two sets of rules.


No, soccer came before rugby.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Ideas are not responsible for their followers!

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

klaus wrote in message news:bvsh0k$cq6$
I believe in nonstress situations, 6 is the greatest number of things
we can remember as one "unit" (Russ?? you've got to have dealt with
this??) Beyond that size you have to break it into subgroups.

Though there are individual differences, short-term memory span is
typically 7 (+/-2) or basically between 5 and 9. Which is why
remberring a 7 digit phone number is right at most people's limit.
But yes, you can chunk into subgroups - the 3 number (801) area code,
for example, would probably only take the STM space of one "digit".

People think STM span can be improved with training. Then again, it
can be impeded by other things. (That girl I met while drinking last
night... what was her phone number again? Thank god for my cell phone.
Oh wait... what was her name again?)

btw- today was EPIC out there.

-rc

In article ,
se wrote:

My (2) is not empirical.


Yes it is!

I agree, you don't "need to understand
the precise physical processes underlying them",

That is all that I'm saying; I thought that you were stating something
different, which is why I commented (and specifically asked you if you
meant that).


Understanding *how* helps with your prediction *before* you leave the cabin.


You most certainly *do* need to understand the general factors that create
the various forms of snow, and their possible consequences. E.g., if I'm
following the weather, and I know that there is 8" of snow on the ground
for a month with outside temperatures plumbing well below freezing, then I
don't even need to go outside, or to dig a pit, to know that there is
faceted snow on the ground. The possible consequence of this? Three feet
of new snow overnight on what is now depth hoar is freakishly unstable.
Will it slide? Maybe, maybe not, but I definitely wouldn't be out there
to find out. Similar analyses apply to other scenarios. It's a gross avy
prediction suitable for placing in a 3x3 in the absence of other
information.

I actually believe that the only thing you guys look at avy reports for is
to see what's slid the day before.

The Munter 3x3 & reduction doesn't
even require digging a pit or any detailed crystal formation knowledge, but it
does require a forecast.


But why do you think Munter proposed such a scheme in the first place?

cheers,
john

I lost track of who wrote what, but somebody wrote:

Absolutely not. I just meant that over-analysis and getting caught up
in terms and words can distract a person from the actual situation - at
least that can happen if you're a simpleton like me. I just liked russ'
"macro-level obs" approach.
[snip]
Jeez, carry on by all means - I was just trying to let russ know I
appreciated his thoughts concerning the empirical.

Thank you. My reasons were deeper. I was out recently with some new bc
partners (always interesting). Everything was weird (though the snow
has turned out to be suprisngly stable through this cycle), to the
point that I was only wanting to ski low-angle tree shots. Their
(fresh out of avi class) approach was along the lines of "I know that
slope is steep, exposed, and wind loaded, but we don't know that it's
unsafe until we dig a pit. Maybe our micro-observations will change
your mind."

In other words, using snowpits and snow crystal/bonding reasons to
convince yourself to ski a slope rather than (in my opinion) the more
sensible approach of using these things to convince yourself NOT to
ski a slope.
There's a big difference between the philosophy of "all slopes are
safe to ski unless proven otherise" and "no slope is safe to ski
unless proven so." Surely, there's a compromise between these two -
but I often see people using micro-level observations in the hope of
overriding foreboding macro-level observations.

Like others here, I trust my ears and ears more than physical
chemistry and thermodyanmics.
As a psychologist, (though it's way out of my normal area) I've become
really interested in a lot of high risk judgement and decision making
situations, including (obviously) backcountry skiing judgements and
decisions.

Today I was skiing in-bounds and was pondering the fact that my usual
bc ski partners are probably an average of 10 years older than my
usualy resort partners. They probably drink close to the same amount
though.

-rc