Let it go

Let it go

On Sep 7, 8:13*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,





*snowbender wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT_EygkFh1I

Only in your little knowledge.

No: in reality.

Your illusions!

Your observation.

Nope.

So it's your imagination?

Not bad, at least you know how search the web.

Which is apparently more than you could do...

I won't be so proud about the plagiarism.

Providing you with a reference is not plagiarism. Did you expect me to
draw it in ascii art?

Not if you use that link to present it as your knowledge, that is
considered as plagiarism in the classrooms, so is the general idea.

There's a difference between my knowledge and what I can present in a
text news group. The link was to make a picture of what telemark
actually looks like available to the group.

But my knowledge or their picture, they both agree that you're not doing
telemark.







Note that to do it, you need free heel bindings.

No, all you need is "free heels" (lift the heels inside the boots when
needed) to make tele stance, so is "downhill-tele" skiing,

Nope. If your boots are fitted even halfway decently, you cannot lift
your heel more than about half an inch. Not enough -- not nearly enough
-- for a telemark stance.

I did say you don't know what "telemark stance" is, which for all
practical purposes is simply a fore-and-aft stance, but do you know
what this stance is for?

No. You don't get to redefine what a telemark stance is.

Not "redefine" but "refine," once you know what telemark stance is
for.

No. "Redefining" is what you were doing.







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QTwA-rmAFE

Simply keeping one leg ahead all the time isn't telemark skiing,
Chai-tea.

In telemark, the outside ski is always the one ahead in each turn..

So you don't know what teleboarding is either?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg8o6CPClZk

I've never heard of teleboarding, but just because a board of that kind
automatically means that only one foot can be forward, that doesn't
change what a telemark SKI turn is.

Teleboarding is a new technique coming into skiing scene, so you are
lagging behind the modern trend.

Fine.

That doesn't change that telemark skiing is.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in1c6bB4b5M

and read the first comment, "im a telemarker and i think this is
sickkk"--fallout3modable

Which doesn't change a thing.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sep 7, 8:13 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:

Not if you use that link to present it as your knowledge, that is
considered as plagiarism in the classrooms, so is the general idea.

There's a difference between my knowledge and what I can present in a
text news group. The link was to make a picture of what telemark
actually looks like available to the group.

But my knowledge or their picture, they both agree that you're not doing
telemark.

"Your knowledge or their picture" shows only tele in tele gears, and
as it is only a smaller domain, so is your knowledge little, little
knowledge.

Not "redefine" but "refine," once you know what telemark stance is
for.

No. "Redefining" is what you were doing.

It doesn't matter, as your original concept of "tele turns" is rather
primitive.

Teleboarding is a new technique coming into skiing scene, so you are
lagging behind the modern trend.

Fine.

That doesn't change that telemark skiing is.

No, but teleboarding expands it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in1c6bB4b5M

and read the first comment, "im a telemarker and i think this is
sickkk"--fallout3modable

Which doesn't change a thing.

A telemarker's comment weighs more than your empty talk.

snowbender

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

On Sep 7, 8:14 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:

Yes, powder snow will not just happen in one spot.

At least partially true.

Then, there were powder skiing somewhere?

No. There was powder snow somewhere. Can't you even read what you just
wrote:

Yes, if there's powder along the line I traverse, what happen when I
ski through them?

Yup, "you don't have enough knowledge to know what a "proof" is."

I know that a video of someone (not even necessarily you) pushing a pole
into snow is not any kind of proof that you can ski powder and the fact
that you claim it was you, but you didn't show any skiing strongly
suggests that you can't ski it.

Now your English doesn't even make sense, care to explain your double-
negative sentence?

snowbender

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

On Sep 7, 8:18 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:

You can only see what you know, but no, they were actually down
unweighting and "steering." So, what's your "pedal turns"?

No, they were up unweighted. You move up just before the pivot.

No, the terrain moved up at the "lips" of the gully; nevertheless, the
turning technique is down weighting--weigh on the coming outside ski
to cause the skis to turn, i.e. pedal down like riding a bike uphill.
But, what do you mean by "pedal turns," again?

Just say no crowds, eh!? But why did you think that "he or she must
have been snowplowing"?

I just told you.

Delusion is seeing something that is not there.

Laughable, and the only video with powder snow which you think no
skiing is actually part of the clips of this traverse,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOkPYR40j1U

So, "your little knowledge couldn't put the one plus one equals to two
together."

Why mention it at all?

It was the topic under discussion. When I say there's no powder snow,
you cannot make an "aha" moment out my mentioning the words.

No, the topic under discussion was "pedal turns," and you were only
wiggling, to avoid facing your own defeat.

No, just to check if you have the wits to know, terminal
intermediate.

LOL

That's how a little knowledge couldn't grow and stuck on the
terminal
intermediate state.

LOL

"That's how a little knowledge couldn't grow and

LOL

So you rather be "stuck on the terminal intermediate state"? good for
you.

LOL

So here goes the terminal intermediate, happy as a clam.

LOL

Guess that/LOL is freezed on your face by now.

Yes, there are always "seen" and "unseen," so there are ALWAYS "two"
to make one scene, and your green MA cannot tell what you see.

You're doing your usual gobbledegook, Chai-tea.

No, that's what you little knowledge doesn't know, like Taichi, "Yin
and Yang" is too deep a theory for you.

LOL

Yup, how little knowledge of you.

You showed the first video ever of snow deep enough for powder skiing
but showed no skiing of it.

End of story.

The story of how you little knowledge gets stuck.

Nope. End of the story of how you didn't prove you can ski powder by
showing someone sticking a pole into deep snow.

Yes, but you don't know what constitutes a proof.

Figured, you only think you know, but no, gravity cannot be seen, so
you don't know what you see.

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous analogy.

Now we see how ridiculous your little knowledge is, yes, skiing is the
sport of gravity, so what you think as ridiculous is ridiculous.

Or you don't know what tele turns are?

No. I know what they are and you didn't make them.

No, you don't know what and how to make tele turns, so it is your
shameless denial. Tele turns are turns made with tele stance.

No, but when you haven't come to California, there's no way you can
ski the sierra powder to mid thigh, so "I can. I have." are only you
imagination, if not your lie.

You think sierra powder is somehow magical and different than powder at
Big White in BC interior?

Not magical but just plain difficult and different to ski the sierra
cements, and without experience you wouldn't know what it is.

snowbender

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

In article
,
snowbender wrote:

On Sep 7, 8:14 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:

Yes, powder snow will not just happen in one spot.

At least partially true.

Then, there were powder skiing somewhere?

No. There was powder snow somewhere. Can't you even read what you just
wrote:

Yes, if there's powder along the line I traverse, what happen when I
ski through them?

We don't know that that video wasn't 10 feet from a groom trail. There's
no proof you made even a single turn in the powder snow.


Yup, "you don't have enough knowledge to know what a "proof" is."

I know that a video of someone (not even necessarily you) pushing a pole
into snow is not any kind of proof that you can ski powder and the fact
that you claim it was you, but you didn't show any skiing strongly
suggests that you can't ski it.

Now your English doesn't even make sense, care to explain your double-
negative sentence?

Su

You love to show of your skiing. You're basically a braggart.

That video doesn't show any skiing, so that makes me ask why.

The reason, you realized you looked too bad in it to do anything but
post the pole plant at the very beginning when you first turned off the
hard packed snow.

Why has there never been any actual video of you skiing in snow up to
your thighs or waist, Chai-tea?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

On Sep 8, 9:09*am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,





*snowbender wrote:
On Sep 7, 8:14 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
*snowbender wrote:

Yes, powder snow will not just happen in one spot.

At least partially true.

Then, there were powder skiing somewhere?

No. There was powder snow somewhere. Can't you even read what you just
wrote:

Yes, if there's powder along the line I traverse, what happen when I
ski through them?

We don't know that that video wasn't 10 feet from a groom trail. There's
no proof you made even a single turn in the powder snow.



Yup, "you don't have enough knowledge to know what a "proof" is."

I know that a video of someone (not even necessarily you) pushing a pole
into snow is not any kind of proof that you can ski powder and the fact
that you claim it was you, but you didn't show any skiing strongly
suggests that you can't ski it.

Now your English doesn't even make sense, care to explain your double-
negative sentence?

Su

You love to show of your skiing. You're basically a braggart.

Holy ****. This from Mad Dog Baker, who brags about his cowardice.

That video doesn't show any skiing, so that makes me ask why.

One thing for su no video of you showing up and spewing your crap
in person. No reason to turn the camera on. Because you
ppppppppiuuuuuuuussssssssiiiiiiiiiieeeeeedddddddd out


Why has there never been any actual video of you skiing in snow up to
your thighs or waist, Chai-tea?

Why has there never been any actual video of you showing up at
Whistler? Because you diapered up and wimped out, Mad Dog Baker.

On Sep 8, 9:09 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:

Yes, if there's powder along the line I traverse, what happen when I
ski through them?

We don't know that that video wasn't 10 feet from a groom trail. There's
no proof you made even a single turn in the powder snow.

These comments sure prove that you're a green MA, if not retarded; you
cannot ski down a real mountain not-turning! Nevertheless, I do like
to show what I think is high level skiing, not necessary just mine,
and that is one of the functions of this forum.

Now your English doesn't even make sense, care to explain your double-
negative sentence?

Su

You love to show of your skiing. You're basically a braggart.

Yes and no, not that I brag but you know little about "real" skiing.

That video doesn't show any skiing, so that makes me ask why.

The reason, you realized you looked too bad in it to do anything but
post the pole plant at the very beginning when you first turned off the
hard packed snow.

Pretty retarded reasoning. Clearly, the pole plant in the clip was to
initiate a turn around the tree in the picture, [the first scene/
picture of the clip shows the path of the traverse,] and when the pole
got stuck in the snow, the momentum threw the skier backward and
turned the skier into the tree; the 4 sec is short, but that was how
fast it happened. You ain't see nothing in your reading/analysis!

Why has there never been any actual video of you skiing in snow up to
your thighs or waist, Chai-tea?

No, I haven't skied in the thigh or waist high snow, and I don't think
that is practical in "regular" skiing environment, so that is your
"holy grail," not mine; in Chinese, we called that kind of technique
"the carving bugs [little] technique," which you have to spend a lot
of time and energy to practice then to produce, yet, it does not
enhance your over all performance, so, a wise one does not pursue such
a feat. Consequently, in this view, one who skis the waist high snow,
and brags about it, is the real braggart, as the skiing will not be
pretty.

snowbender

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

In article
,
snowbender wrote:

On Sep 8, 9:09 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:

Yes, if there's powder along the line I traverse, what happen when I
ski through them?

We don't know that that video wasn't 10 feet from a groom trail. There's
no proof you made even a single turn in the powder snow.

These comments sure prove that you're a green MA, if not retarded; you
cannot ski down a real mountain not-turning! Nevertheless, I do like
to show what I think is high level skiing, not necessary just mine,
and that is one of the functions of this forum.

But you can ski 10 feet from a groomed trail into deep snow and then go
right back to the groomed trail.


Now your English doesn't even make sense, care to explain your double-
negative sentence?

Su

You love to show of your skiing. You're basically a braggart.

Yes and no, not that I brag but you know little about "real" skiing.

That video doesn't show any skiing, so that makes me ask why.

The reason, you realized you looked too bad in it to do anything but
post the pole plant at the very beginning when you first turned off the
hard packed snow.

Pretty retarded reasoning. Clearly, the pole plant in the clip was to
initiate a turn around the tree in the picture, [the first scene/
picture of the clip shows the path of the traverse,] and when the pole
got stuck in the snow, the momentum threw the skier backward and
turned the skier into the tree; the 4 sec is short, but that was how
fast it happened. You ain't see nothing in your reading/analysis!

How could it be to initiate a turn when you were at a complete stop when
you made it?

You came to a stop and then slowly pushed your pole into the snow.

Thank you for finally producing the proof that you're just a liar.


Why has there never been any actual video of you skiing in snow up to
your thighs or waist, Chai-tea?

No, I haven't skied in the thigh or waist high snow, and I don't think
that is practical in "regular" skiing environment, so that is your
"holy grail," not mine; in Chinese, we called that kind of technique
"the carving bugs [little] technique," which you have to spend a lot
of time and energy to practice then to produce, yet, it does not
enhance your over all performance, so, a wise one does not pursue such
a feat. Consequently, in this view, one who skis the waist high snow,
and brags about it, is the real braggart, as the skiing will not be
pretty.

So you admit you can't actually ski powder. It's completely practical in
a regular skiing environment, Chai-tea. People do it all the time.

This is what it looks like at Alta:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nns4GbZtOZE

Here's some at Big White (where I've skied it):

http://vimeo.com/2761905

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsNC_kdWKGI

Note the the large differences between the videos you claim show you
skiing powder and real powder skiing.

And thanks for admitting you have never actually been in real powder.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

In article
,
snowbender wrote:

On Sep 7, 8:13 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:

Not if you use that link to present it as your knowledge, that is
considered as plagiarism in the classrooms, so is the general idea.

There's a difference between my knowledge and what I can present in a
text news group. The link was to make a picture of what telemark
actually looks like available to the group.

But my knowledge or their picture, they both agree that you're not doing
telemark.

"Your knowledge or their picture" shows only tele in tele gears, and
as it is only a smaller domain, so is your knowledge little, little
knowledge.

Not "redefine" but "refine," once you know what telemark stance is
for.

No. "Redefining" is what you were doing.

It doesn't matter, as your original concept of "tele turns" is rather
primitive.

No. My concept matches with what tele turns actually are when one is on
skis.


Teleboarding is a new technique coming into skiing scene, so you are
lagging behind the modern trend.

Fine.

That doesn't change that telemark skiing is.

No, but teleboarding expands it.

Nope. It creates its own thing, but it doesn't change what telemark
skiing is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in1c6bB4b5M

and read the first comment, "im a telemarker and i think this is
sickkk"--fallout3modable

Which doesn't change a thing.

A telemarker's comment weighs more than your empty talk.

It would. But you're not one.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

snowbender wrote:
On Sep 8, 9:09 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
snowbender wrote:

Yes, if there's powder along the line I traverse, what happen when I
ski through them?

We don't know that that video wasn't 10 feet from a groom trail.
There's no proof you made even a single turn in the powder snow.

These comments sure prove that you're a green MA, if not retarded; you
cannot ski down a real mountain not-turning! Nevertheless, I do like
to show what I think is high level skiing, not necessary just mine,
and that is one of the functions of this forum.

Now your English doesn't even make sense, care to explain your
double- negative sentence?

Su

You love to show of your skiing. You're basically a braggart.

Yes and no, not that I brag but you know little about "real" skiing.

That video doesn't show any skiing, so that makes me ask why.

The reason, you realized you looked too bad in it to do anything but
post the pole plant at the very beginning when you first turned off
the hard packed snow.

Pretty retarded reasoning. Clearly, the pole plant in the clip was to
initiate a turn around the tree in the picture, [the first scene/
picture of the clip shows the path of the traverse,] and when the pole
got stuck in the snow, the momentum threw the skier backward and
turned the skier into the tree; the 4 sec is short, but that was how
fast it happened. You ain't see nothing in your reading/analysis!

Why has there never been any actual video of you skiing in snow up to
your thighs or waist, Chai-tea?

No, I haven't skied in the thigh or waist high snow, and I don't think
that is practical in "regular" skiing environment, so that is your
"holy grail," not mine; in Chinese, we called that kind of technique
"the carving bugs [little] technique," which you have to spend a lot
of time and energy to practice then to produce, yet, it does not
enhance your over all performance, so, a wise one does not pursue such
a feat. Consequently, in this view, one who skis the waist high snow,
and brags about it, is the real braggart, as the skiing will not be
pretty.


Itchie - again you prove how little you know. The one time I skied in waist deep
snow here in the cascades, it was some of the prettiest skiing I've ever done or
seen. It was true 3-dimensional skiing. Smooth and beautiful.

Alan - why do you bother? Nobody has ever gotten a lick of sense out of Itchie.