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
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fantastic skiing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #291  
Old December 8th 08, 05:40 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
taichiskiing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,256
Default dumb as a brick

On Dec 8, 7:18 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 7:11 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:36 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:29 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:58 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 6, 6:09 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:49 am, Richard Henry wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Quad erat demonstrandum


Precisely.


Not quite. I misspelled "quod".


"Precisely," you have no balls to spell it correctly or to make your
statement clearly.


IS
Ads
  #292  
Old December 8th 08, 06:40 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Richard Henry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,756
Default dumb as a brick

On Dec 8, 9:40*am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 8, 7:18 am, Richard Henry wrote:





On Dec 8, 7:11 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:36 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:29 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:58 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 6, 6:09 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:49 am, Richard Henry wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Quad erat demonstrandum


Precisely.


Not quite. *I misspelled "quod".


"Precisely," you have no balls to spell it correctly or to make your
statement clearly.

What do my balls have to do with my spelling?

Besides, "quad" has more obski content than "quod".
  #293  
Old December 8th 08, 10:45 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Dave Cartman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,382
Default dumb as a brick

In article
,
Richard Henry wrote:

"Precisely," you have no balls to spell it correctly or to make your
statement clearly.

What do my balls have to do with my spelling?


I'm beginning to think that is a hallmark of netkookery, the whole
"balls" thing.
  #294  
Old December 8th 08, 11:01 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
A mighty Hungarian warrior
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,491
Default dumb as a brick

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:29:42 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
wrote this crap:


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


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



No. It's twelve inches. Want me to post twelve inches? I'd have to
do it twice.




A mighty Hungarian warrior
The blood of Attila runs through me
  #295  
Old December 9th 08, 03:49 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
taichiskiing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,256
Default dumb as a brick

On Dec 8, 10:40 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:40 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 8, 7:18 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 7:11 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:36 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:29 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:58 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 6, 6:09 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:49 am, Richard Henry wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Quad erat demonstrandum


Precisely.


Not quite. I misspelled "quod".


"Precisely," you have no balls to spell it correctly or to make your
statement clearly.


What do my balls have to do with my spelling?


That's something to do with testosterones I guess. Little characters
tend to make misspells, stuttering, and/or making obfuscated
statements when they are under stress, such conditions as lost their
nerves, dare not to commit, or sheer shameless denials. You have to
man up to see it.


Besides, "quad" has more obski content than "quod".


It doesn't matter; MsWord has indicated the other two are misspells.
Obfuscation it is.


IS
  #296  
Old December 9th 08, 07:38 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Dave Cartman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,382
Default dumb as a brick

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

That's something to do with testosterones I guess. Little characters
tend to make misspells, stuttering, and/or making obfuscated
statements when they are under stress, such conditions as lost their
nerves, dare not to commit, or sheer shameless denials. You have to
man up to see it.


This may be your funniest post yet.

Dave
  #297  
Old December 10th 08, 02:48 AM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Richard Henry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,756
Default dumb as a brick

On Dec 9, 7:49*am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:40 am, Richard Henry wrote:





On Dec 8, 9:40 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 8, 7:18 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 7:11 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:36 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:29 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:58 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 6, 6:09 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:49 am, Richard Henry wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Quad erat demonstrandum


Precisely.


Not quite. *I misspelled "quod".


"Precisely," you have no balls to spell it correctly or to make your
statement clearly.


What do my balls have to do with my spelling?


That's something to do with testosterones I guess. Little characters
tend to make misspells, stuttering, and/or making obfuscated
statements when they are under stress, such conditions as lost their
nerves, dare not to commit, or sheer shameless denials. You have to
man up to see it.



Besides, "quad" has more obski content than "quod".


It doesn't matter; MsWord has indicated the other two are misspells.
Obfuscation it is.


Priceless!
 




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
rec.skiing,rec.skiing.alpine,rec.skiing.backcountry,rec.skiing.nordic Peter Steppe Backcountry Skiing 0 January 5th 05 09:19 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:31 AM.


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