A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Alpine Skiing (moderated)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Jackson (and Utah) mid-trip report



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 15th 05, 11:57 PM
lal_truckee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

VtSkier wrote:

I skied with LAL back at the end of February. On Monday
we had a foot of fresh snow. We called it powder and
LAL later confirmed that the water content was about
8% which is within Bob's definition of "powder" being
between 2% and 10% water.


Uh, I think the deal was the fresh foot we skied was 12%; the fresh foot
a few days earlier in the week, which I probably mentioned, was 8%
according to the instruments. I don't know what that does to Bob and his
def.

How's the ribs.

Ads
  #22  
Old March 16th 05, 12:30 AM
pigo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"yunlong" wrote in message
oups.com...


and I go by perception; when it looks like powder, feels like
powder
(by the feet), and is skied like powder, yup, I'll call it powder
too,
slush or not.


Slush may be fun but it DOES NOT look, feel, or ski like powder.

Oxymoron or not, the guy plunged down Cornice cheered and shout
"yahoo!
The slush powder really turnable" didn't care a bit, he have
enjoyed
the run.


I yelled "yahoo" on some groomed the other day. Does that make it
"flat powder"?

How long have you been skiing in the US anyway? I'd expect
you to have a better grip on the nomenclature by now.


So you think that your narrowly fine tuned linguistics makes you a
better skier?


I would say he thinks (with justification) a stupid ****ing
statement.

  #23  
Old March 16th 05, 01:53 AM
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

lal_truckee wrote:
VtSkier wrote:


I skied with LAL back at the end of February. On Monday
we had a foot of fresh snow. We called it powder and
LAL later confirmed that the water content was about
8% which is within Bob's definition of "powder" being
between 2% and 10% water.



Uh, I think the deal was the fresh foot we skied was 12%; the fresh foot
a few days earlier in the week, which I probably mentioned, was 8%
according to the instruments. I don't know what that does to Bob and his
def.

How's the ribs.


Oh, sorry about the mis-read. It seemed pretty much powdery,
though I have skied fluffier stuff right here in good old
Vermont, say two years ago? I do remember being a little
tentative but I think I could get used to it without
crashing too often.

Ribs are mending. Or should I say the muscle between the
ribs are getting back to where it should be. Still a little
pain when I change attitude (standing to lying down), no pain
sneezing or coughing (that's good)

I still can't get the Raichle boots to be comfortable for
more than 2 hours. Tried last Friday. On at 8:30. Couldn't
stand them by 12:00. Switched to AT boots.

  #24  
Old March 16th 05, 01:55 AM
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Lee wrote:
VtSkier wrote:


On top of that, you have ragged on Bob for failing to
see your meaning when it's your use of words that is
keeping him from seeing your meaning.



That reminds me of one or two of my marriages.

Love-hate Bob


Well gee, he is the same gender as you (I think), I would
normally expect that you would understand what he's saying.

  #25  
Old March 16th 05, 04:21 PM
yunlong
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

VtSkier wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:

......

JHC Yunlong,
Haven't you learned a ___ thing?


No, I don't normally stuff myself with useless/impractical information.


Making up stuff here just doesn't cut it, and ragging on
someone because of your inability to make him understand
because of your use of words doesn't cut it either.


What you don't know does not invalidate what you don't know.


In a great and lengthy thread, I finally figured out what
you were trying to say with what you were calling a
particular type of "turn". I conceded that what you
were describing was a good and valuable addition to
a skier's "quiver" of turns available, and in fact that
it was a move I use fairly frequently myself, even though
I do it slightly differently from the way you described it.


Nonetheless, my description of it was accurate, and it is functional as
described?


I talking about what you call a slip or slipped turn in
which you are increasing the radius of a turn by allowing
the tips of the skis to slip away from the direction of
the turn.


So my words take you long time to reflect, nevertheless, you rag on me
"inability to make [you] understand"?


Now here you've gone and written something in such a way
that people may not understand because it's not common
usage and then tried to back it up with the fiction that
it IS common usage at Kirkwood.


I got my impression from a guy with a Kirkwood season pass, where do
you get your "common usage" of the term at Kirkwood?


On top of that, you have ragged on Bob for failing to
see your meaning when it's your use of words that is
keeping him from seeing your meaning.


Maybe you guys should learn how to read words metaphorically, to
broaden you guys perception?


It's simple really, you have invented an oxymoron by
virtue of the fact that most English speaker's sense of
powder is "fluffy" and slush is about as far from
fluffy as it's possible to get.


So you English speakers never use the term "'wet' powder"?


I skied with LAL back at the end of February. On Monday
we had a foot of fresh snow.


Lucky you, it wasn't supposed to be there (by the earlier weather
reports).

We called it powder and
LAL later confirmed that the water content was about
8% which is within Bob's definition of "powder" being
between 2% and 10% water.


So what do you call those snows with water content of 12%?


On the previous Saturday, LAL took me over onto the
sunny "backside" of the area. We found fairly new loose
snow, somewhat cut up, but not bad. With the sun hitting
it I would have guessed a water content of around 25%.
It was very hard for me to turn in because it was sticky.


Yup, that's maybe what the most sierra snow is right now; you need to
know how to flatten the boards--yes, flatboarding--to ski it.


Truly wet snow, or slush which is really mostly water
(I'd say upwards of 75%) is actually easier for me to
ski on than that sticky stuff. I actually like skiing
what we here in the east call "slush bumps".


But you think "slush bumps" is ok, but "slush powder" is oxymoron?

Oxymoronic?


IS


VtSkier


  #26  
Old March 16th 05, 04:21 PM
yunlong
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:

Though daytime temperature reaches 70+, the snow
remains cool, and the moguls and slush powders
are very skiable/turnable after the snow is
softened around midday.

"Slush powders"? Pray tell, what is that?

The spring powder/snow before it turns into the corn snow?

I see we're a loose constructionist with the concept of

"powder."

Yup, that's how Kirkwood locals call it, because it is
left-over "powder," and it is skied just like "wet
powder"/"sierra cements."

What do you mean by "powder" again?

By "powder" I mean light, dry, fluffy snow, hopefully with
a water content of not much more than 10%.


You go by the numbers,


Right, I can see that it definitely wasn't you that stole
Mary's rsa players card.

We can argue about
what the upper level of snow water content qualifies as
powder, but let's first agree that all fresh snow is not
powder. Powder snow is dry, there is no "wet powder," and
"sierra cement" is NOT powder.


and I go by perception; when it looks like powder, feels
like powder (by the feet), and is skied like powder, yup,
I'll call it powder too, slush or not.


Here's my perception - if it is slush, then it doesn't looks
like powder, or feel like powder, and you don't ski it like
powder, so you don't call it powder.


In your partitioned mind, maybe, what if it is less than slush? What do
you call it?

You seem like the sort
of guy that would paint spots on a house cat and call it a leopard.


You seem like the sort of guy that would see a house cat with a weird
pattern and call it a leopard.


And FWIW, the Kirkwood locals I know don't use the word
"powder" to describe wet snow or "sierra cement"...ever,
no matter how fresh it is. "Slush powder" is a total oxymoron.


Oxymoron or not, the guy plunged down Cornice cheered and
shout "yahoo!The slush powder really turnable" didn't care a
bit, he have enjoyed the run.

How long have you been skiing in the US anyway? I'd
expect you to have a better grip on the nomenclature by now.


So you think that your narrowly fine tuned linguistics makes
you a better skier?


No, my skiing is what makes me a better skier, but we're not
skiing here are we? We're using WORDS to WRITE about skiing.
That's why he linguistics are crucial. Try to keep up, 'kay?


Maybe you should learn how to read words metaphorically, to broaden
your perception?


But I'd be happy if, instead of trying to write about skiing,
you'd just put up links to more of those videos of you trying
to ski.


Maybe when the photographer is ready.

They make me laugh.


It, the laugh, only reflects your shallowness.


IS


Bob


  #27  
Old March 16th 05, 04:22 PM
yunlong
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

lal_truckee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
the guy plunged down Cornice cheered and shout "yahoo!
The slush powder really turnable"


I don't believe it. Someone might yell "Yahoo! the slush is
fun!" but never "yahoo! The slush powder really turnable"


Not if that someone was talking to someone;


You made that up; and got it wrong anyway.


from wrong assumption to wrong conclusion, yup, you got it wrong.


IS

  #28  
Old March 17th 05, 01:04 AM
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

yunlong wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

yunlong wrote:

Bob Lee wrote:

yunlong wrote:

Bob Lee wrote:

yunlong wrote:

Bob Lee wrote:

yunlong wrote:


.....

JHC Yunlong,
Haven't you learned a ___ thing?



No, I don't normally stuff myself with useless/impractical information.


Making up stuff here just doesn't cut it, and ragging on
someone because of your inability to make him understand
because of your use of words doesn't cut it either.



What you don't know does not invalidate what you don't know.


In a great and lengthy thread, I finally figured out what
you were trying to say with what you were calling a
particular type of "turn". I conceded that what you
were describing was a good and valuable addition to
a skier's "quiver" of turns available, and in fact that
it was a move I use fairly frequently myself, even though
I do it slightly differently from the way you described it.



Nonetheless, my description of it was accurate, and it is functional as
described?

No, your description, meaning the words you used was
NOT accurate and it was NOT clear, that' why it took
so long to arrive at what you were trying to say.

I talking about what you call a slip or slipped turn in
which you are increasing the radius of a turn by allowing
the tips of the skis to slip away from the direction of
the turn.



So my words take you long time to reflect, nevertheless, you rag on me
"inability to make [you] understand"?

Much discussion is required before I can figure our what
you are saying, reflection has nothing to do with it. I'm
asking you to explain yourself in words that I understand.
And, Yes, I'm still ragging on you for not using words in
the way they are understood by English speakers. It is
English, after all, that we are conversing in.

Now here you've gone and written something in such a way
that people may not understand because it's not common
usage and then tried to back it up with the fiction that
it IS common usage at Kirkwood.



I got my impression from a guy with a Kirkwood season pass, where do
you get your "common usage" of the term at Kirkwood?

If I heard from someone what you heard, my irony meter
would peg hard on the right side of the dial and I'd
laugh like hell at this guy talking about "slush powder".
I certainly wouldn't take him seriously and I would
doubt very much if he was altogether serious.

On top of that, you have ragged on Bob for failing to
see your meaning when it's your use of words that is
keeping him from seeing your meaning.



Maybe you guys should learn how to read words metaphorically, to
broaden you guys perception?

I understand metaphor in the context they are given.

It's simple really, you have invented an oxymoron by
virtue of the fact that most English speaker's sense of
powder is "fluffy" and slush is about as far from
fluffy as it's possible to get.



So you English speakers never use the term "'wet' powder"?

No.

I skied with LAL back at the end of February. On Monday
we had a foot of fresh snow.



Lucky you, it wasn't supposed to be there (by the earlier weather
reports).


We called it powder and
LAL later confirmed that the water content was about
8% which is within Bob's definition of "powder" being
between 2% and 10% water.



So what do you call those snows with water content of 12%?

Actually it was 12%, my mistake which LAL corrected me
on, and I would still call it powder. It was fluffy, at
least for the first time through it.

On the previous Saturday, LAL took me over onto the
sunny "backside" of the area. We found fairly new loose
snow, somewhat cut up, but not bad. With the sun hitting
it I would have guessed a water content of around 25%.
It was very hard for me to turn in because it was sticky.



Yup, that's maybe what the most sierra snow is right now; you need to
know how to flatten the boards--yes, flatboarding--to ski it.


Truly wet snow, or slush which is really mostly water
(I'd say upwards of 75%) is actually easier for me to
ski on than that sticky stuff. I actually like skiing
what we here in the east call "slush bumps".



But you think "slush bumps" is ok, but "slush powder" is oxymoron?

Slush powder is clearly oxymoronic or maybe just plain
moronic for the reasons I gave. It's an oxymoron in the
same way that "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence"
are oxymorons. The describe something with expressions
which are polar opposites. However, a bump can be made
with powder, ice or slush. Easily. It can even be ice
in the troughs and powder on the tops. That's the way
they were at Killington today. When the sun hits them
the can be made of wetter snow or soft sticky snow. When
the sun hits them for several days, it's 45 degrees and
they get rained on, the bumps are most certainly made of
slush.

Powder cannot be made of slush. That's what you are asking
me to accept.

Moronic!

Oxymoronic?


IS


VtSkier




  #29  
Old March 17th 05, 01:59 AM
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Lee wrote:
(snipperoo)


I can read metaphors like I can read the wind, but you didn't write any
metaphors - you wrote an oxymoron. You *do* know that metaphors are not
oxymorons, that there is a distinct difference?

We see that you've got a talent for at oxymorons, now try writing a
metaphor (like I did above) and then tell us the difference between a
metaphor and an oxymoron. For extra points, see if you can use the term
"chew-toy" in your metaphor. Example: I play with Ichin Shin like my
dog plays with his favorite chew-toy.

I'm sorry Bob, what you have written is not a metaphor, it
is a simile. These are very close constructs but it is a
simile by the fact that you used the word "like" (you might
have used "as" instead of "like" but no others).

Example: My playing with Ichin Shen reminds me of my dog
playing with his favorite chew-toy.

This is a metaphor. Using "like" or "as" makes it a simile.

(snip some more)

VtSkier

  #30  
Old March 17th 05, 03:16 AM
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Lee wrote:
VtSkier wrote:


Bob Lee wrote:
(snipperoo)

I can read metaphors like I can read the wind, but you didn't write any
metaphors - you wrote an oxymoron. You *do* know that metaphors are not
oxymorons, that there is a distinct difference?

We see that you've got a talent for at oxymorons, now try writing a
metaphor (like I did above) and then tell us the difference between a
metaphor and an oxymoron. For extra points, see if you can use the term
"chew-toy" in your metaphor. Example: I play with Ichin Shin like my
dog plays with his favorite chew-toy.


I'm sorry Bob, what you have written is not a metaphor, it
is a simile. These are very close constructs but it is a
simile by the fact that you used the word "like" (you might
have used "as" instead of "like" but no others).

Example: My playing with Ichin Shen reminds me of my dog
playing with his favorite chew-toy.

This is a metaphor. Using "like" or "as" makes it a simile.



Thanks, that's good information. I obviously need to study up on my
English grammar - at times it can be more confusing than reading Ichin
Shin. (Was that a metaphor or a similie?)

But "a locked-heel telemark binding" and "Lal's fat skis" are still
oxymorons, right?

Bob

Indeed. Especially LAL's fat skis.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jackson (and Utah) mid-trip report lal_truckee Alpine Skiing 154 March 25th 05 04:57 PM
Jackson (and Utah) pre-trip report lal_truckee Alpine Skiing 1 March 10th 05 04:10 AM
Christmas 2005 Ski Trip BostonJD Alpine Skiing 3 February 3rd 05 07:35 AM
Jackson Hole...here WE come slownlow North American Ski Resorts 2 January 20th 05 10:10 PM
Trip Report: Jackson Hole/SLC Switters Snowboarding 0 March 20th 04 02:53 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.