The spirit of skiing
yunlong
patroller caught up with me when I was to make a transit to the Powder
Bowl, wanted to have a "chat" with me.
"You are going too fast," he said.
Too fast on Ridge Run? Ridge Run is THE "Broadway" of Heavenly, and is
a wide and mild blue run, I frowned and didn't answer him.
"Do you understand?" he may think I was a foreigner, but he was quite
serious.
"No, I don't understand," I answered.
Well, at least I speak English, so he continued, "the way you fly down
the hill is too fast for the environment."
"Why?" I frowned.
"You should turn more," he said.
"I go faster if I turn," I told him.
"The way you flying and passing other skiers on the hill is too fast
for the environment."
"There's no sign up there to say how fast I can[/cannot] go?" I said.
And I told him that I came to Heavenly to ski, for the sport and the
speed.
"It's a tough call, maybe you can do straightlining at nine o'clock,
but... the way you straightline flying down the trail is reckless," he
was referring my open arms style.
I said, "No, I was not reckless. I made a precision run and it was
under control at the all time." Actually, the open arms is my most
stable and maneuverable posture, and I made two downhill/GS style turns
to avoid some skiers on the hill, and I think that's why he thought it
was reckless.
"You should turn more," he continued.
"I go faster if I turn," I continued.
.....
I was not going to back down; it is my right as a valid ticket holder
and national forest user to ski what I want to ski, and you ski
patroller or the resort is not going to depict what style I must have
and how I'm going to ski.
Not sure what was he thinking, but he sensed it, then he suggested I
turn more when I near other skiers, and to tune down the conflict so I
said ok.
And he left, left me there wondering, there was no accident, not even
incident, and the run/path I skied was in no where near a skier that
can be qualified as "passing," just pure flatboardingly fast;
staightlining on a blue run is now "speeding"/"reckless," what is the
sport of skiing coming to?
Where did the spirit of skiing go?
:)
IS
Norm
"yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> And he left, left me there wondering, there was no accident, not even
> incident, and the run/path I skied was in no where near a skier that
> can be qualified as "passing," just pure flatboardingly fast;
> staightlining on a blue run is now "speeding"/"reckless," what is the
> sport of skiing coming to?
>
> Where did the spirit of skiing go?
You are the problem. Too many innocent people got creamed by idiots like
you. He has had to clean up the results too many times. He knew you were
full of shit as soon as you told him you went faster when you turned. Next
time don't say anything quite that stupid and maybe you can have some sort
of dialogue. Read (or get a translator to read) the back of your pass. Lift
privileges can be revoked without refund for irresponsible behaviour. That
means straightlining where there are other people close by. How close is not
your call. There are plenty of places you can ski fast without endangering
anybody else. Use your head.
Jay Pique
pigo
"Norm" <normgr...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:6TC1e.817390$8l.192716@pd7tw1no...
>
> "yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> And he left, left me there wondering, there was no accident, not
>> even
>> incident, and the run/path I skied was in no where near a skier
>> that
>> can be qualified as "passing," just pure flatboardingly fast;
>> staightlining on a blue run is now "speeding"/"reckless," what is
>> the
>> sport of skiing coming to?
>>
>> Where did the spirit of skiing go?
>
> You are the problem. Too many innocent people got creamed by idiots
> like you. He has had to clean up the results too many times. He
> knew you were full of shit as soon as you told him you went faster
> when you turned.
OH! He's full of shit alright. But you can go faster by turning.
Next
> time don't say anything quite that stupid and maybe you can have
> some sort of dialogue. Read (or get a translator to read) the back
> of your pass. Lift privileges can be revoked without refund for
> irresponsible behaviour.
Really? That would be great if they pulled them for the irresponsible
behavior of taking your shiteaters into harms way. There are plenty
of things in this world that have been homoginized and to the lowest
common denomonator for the pussies that want to "look" like they are
doing something dangerous. I don't think skiing is one of them. There
are beginner areas at the bottom for what appears to be your type.
But to haul ass and miss everyone doesn't necessarily become a bad
thing.
Having read some of his bullshit, and his "arms wide" thing this
may/probably not have been one of those circumstances.
That
> means straightlining where there are other people close by. How
> close is not your call. There are plenty of places you can ski
> fast without endangering anybody else. Use your head.
I don't think he said he was straightlining. Remember the turn thing?
Now if you want to start calling on a certain distance for others to
stay away that's fine with me. But then I expect for the boogereaters
snowplowing at 2 mph to be disciplined for coming within that same
distance.
Just this week I was in some trees, about a 5' wide, and came upon
someone dawdling along in some sort of slow uneven traverses. No way
to see them until your upon them, I missed them by a few inches. And
got a little screech out of them.
It's a big boys sport and if you want to be a skier, deal. Or stay in
the family (crybaby) zone where you can be protected from most every
occurance.
And how can you even begin to complain about skiers if you frequent
areas that aren't boardfree? I would think that the lack of
manuverability even by "experienced" boarders, let alone what seems
to be their "rules aren't for us" attitude, would keep you off of
those hills.
Alan Baker
"Norm" <normgr...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
That's quite an unfair analysis of the situation. I'm both an ex-racer
and ski patroller and I know perfectly well that you can straight line a
hill and do so without endangering others.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
VtSkier
The spirit of skiing is in the hands of attorneys.
I would have strongly questioned his statement that skiing
fast is bad for the "environment". What the hell does that
mean.
The only place I saw dedicated speed control guys in the
Tahoe area was at Sierra at Tahoe. He was set up on a
beginner "road" where there was some switchbacks. I stopped
and chatted him up. Decent sort. Around here we only
attempt (it doesn't work, really) to control speed on
trails that are clearly marked as "SLOW" and a few really
dangerous intersections where expert trails cross
novice trails that are particularly heavily used.
VtSkier
Norm
"pigo" <pigopow...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7K2dnVJSHYA...@comcast.com...
>>> can be qualified as "passing," just pure flatboardingly fast;
>>> staightlining on a blue run is now "speeding"/"reckless," what is the
>>> sport of skiing coming to?
>>>
>>> Where did the spirit of skiing go?
>>
>> You are the problem. Too many innocent people got creamed by idiots like
>> you. He has had to clean up the results too many times. He knew you were
>> full of shit as soon as you told him you went faster when you turned.
>
> OH! He's full of shit alright. But you can go faster by turning.
In a pretty narrow set of circumstances, maybe. But generally pointing em
downhill makes em go faster IME.
>
> Next
>> time don't say anything quite that stupid and maybe you can have some
>> sort of dialogue. Read (or get a translator to read) the back of your
>> pass. Lift privileges can be revoked without refund for irresponsible
>> behaviour.
>
> Really? That would be great if they pulled them for the irresponsible
> behavior of taking your shiteaters into harms way.
Sure. No problem if thats actually the case. Do you think there exists more
of a problem at most resorts with people taking their kids where it is
unsafe or with people skiing too fast where its not appropriate?
> There are plenty of things in this world that have been homoginized and to
> the lowest common denomonator for the pussies that want to "look" like
> they are doing something dangerous. I don't think skiing is one of them.
> There are beginner areas at the bottom for what appears to be your type.
> But to haul ass and miss everyone doesn't necessarily become a bad thing.
>
I don't want to see skiing go that way either, but I maintain there are
still plenty of places to ski fast. I love skiing fast. It would damn near
kill the sport for me if I couldn't do so. But, if its crowded or your in an
area where most people are skiing slowly, it is irresponsible. Yunlong
claimed there was room to be skiing fast where he was scolded. He also said,
if I understood him correctly, it was near a transition to another chair.
Those do tend to be the places which get congested, so I tend to think he
was telling only his side of the story.
> Having read some of his bullshit, and his "arms wide" thing this
> may/probably not have been one of those circumstances.
>
> That
>> means straightlining where there are other people close by. How close is
>> not your call. There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
>> endangering anybody else. Use your head.
>
> I don't think he said he was straightlining.
I think he did. See the part of his post still remaining at the top of this
one.
> Remember the turn thing? Now if you want to start calling on a certain
> distance for others to stay away that's fine with me. But then I expect
> for the boogereaters snowplowing at 2 mph to be disciplined for coming
> within that same distance.
But now your looking for us to get out the measuring tapes. If the patroller
felt it was serious enough to take the time out of his day to speak to
Yunlong, then in his opinion, Yonlong was too close or too fast. Thats not
to say every patroller's word is gospel, but in most cases I think they have
enough to occupy their time that they wouldn't be stopping every skier who
isn't cutting short radius turns..
>
> Just this week I was in some trees, about a 5' wide, and came upon someone
> dawdling along in some sort of slow uneven traverses. No way to see them
> until your upon them, I missed them by a few inches. And got a little
> screech out of them.
>
I agree with you, they shouldn't have been there if they couldn't ski it.
Waste of good powder and waste of somebodies time rescuing them when they
get in trouble. But, sometimes people do stupid things. Like get into an
area they can't handle. Thats not the same as skiing too quickly in a
congested zone.
> It's a big boys sport and if you want to be a skier, deal. Or stay in the
> family (crybaby) zone where you can be protected from most every
> occurance.
>
> And how can you
> even begin to complain about skiers if you frequent areas that aren't
> boardfree? I would think that the lack of manuverability even by
> "experienced" boarders, let alone what seems to be their "rules aren't for
> us" attitude, would keep you off of those hills.
>
We've had that discussion, its really irrelevent to this one.
Norm
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-C99D2...@news.telus.net...
Of course you can straight line a hill. But not just ANY hill. . Would you
do it in a congested area?
I know I can ski fast, in control, and there would be very little danger to
people around me. But did the patroller know Yunlong was good enough to get
away with it safely? How could he? In his opinion this was the wrong place
to be doing so and Yunlong should have respected his opinion, after all he
is the guy who has to pick up the pieces if Yunlong happens to
miscalculate..
Bryan
> I was not going to back down; it is my right as a valid ticket holder
> and national forest user to ski what I want to ski, and you ski
> patroller or the resort is not going to depict what style I must have
> and how I'm going to ski.
>
> Not sure what was he thinking, but he sensed it, then he suggested I
> turn more when I near other skiers, and to tune down the conflict so I
> said ok.
>
> And he left, left me there wondering, there was no accident, not even
> incident, and the run/path I skied was in no where near a skier that
> can be qualified as "passing," just pure flatboardingly fast;
> staightlining on a blue run is now "speeding"/"reckless," what is the
> sport of skiing coming to?
>
> Where did the spirit of skiing go?
Well, the spirit of skiing is alive and well. I love skiing within my skill
level and standing on top of a mountain and taking in the incredible views
and enjoying the sounds of people having a good time. Even a bad day, is
there one, beats the heck out of sitting in front of a tv playing with my
remote!
As far as being a ticket holder, everyone is sold a ticket with the
understanding that they will ski responsibly (it's a California/Nevada
thing) - in translation, if the way you ski is perceived by the staff at the
resort to be a threat to other skiers then you are not skiing responsibly.
It's their responsibility to minimize the risk to the most.
You said it was a blue run and called it broadway. Well, in my limited
experience, most blue runs are generally just advanced green runs and not
the place for speed. In some cases it's not a matter of whether, or not,
you are in control, it has more to do with the mix of skill levels from
beginners trying to advance to advanced beginners feeling good on the blues
but not having the greatest set of skills. There are plenty of runs at each
resort, again, in my limited experience, that are appropriate for skiing
fast, but the blue runs tend to require a more reserved approach for the
safety of the less skilled less experienced and younger skiers.
And bottom line, why argue with the ski patrol? It's their opinion that
matters, not yours or mine. Why not just say thanks for the warning and
find an uncrowded black diamond or double black diamond to ski fast on;
there's plenty of appropriate runs and times for skiing fast.
I'm not the experienced expert skier many of you are, but I'm bored (I'm
sitting in front of a tv playing with my remote) and just felt like adding
my own perspective to the thread.
lal_truckee
> he was referring my open arms style.
Patrollers concerned about safety can almost always judge a person's
skill level, and therefore their danger to others, by observing how they
ski. You deliberately skied in a way so as to imply poor skills (you've
also bragged about these poor skills in this very forum, while trying to
pretend your poor skill set actually represented advanced skills, but we
shant revisit that discussion in this thread.) The patroller judged you
as potentially dangerous based on observed skills, and asked you to slow
down in a congested area. You argued. He should have pulled your ticket
and posted your picture in the ticket office so you wouldn't be able to
buy another ever, IMO. Patrolling is not easy and they shouldn't have to
put up with a doofuss.
This has nothing to do with whether skiing fast at a resort is
reasonable or within the spirit of skiing - sometimes it is, sometimes
not. I take my speed skis to the locker when ticket types start arriving
on the mountain and get out a turnier ski - there's a time and place. A
crowded slope is not the place.
You want to ski fast when the resort is crowded, go out of bounds and
knock yourself out. Literally.
pigo
(snipped)
> Sure. No problem if thats actually the case. Do you think there
> exists more of a problem at most resorts with people taking their
> kids where it is unsafe or with people skiing too fast where its
> not appropriate?
Yes I do. I think that if people think that people going fast is
unsafe for their kids they should not take their kids, not expect
people to slow down. I think that the only place that it's not
appropriate is in a designated beginner area segregated from the rest
of the area.
>> There are plenty of things in this world that have been
>> homoginized and to the lowest common denomonator for the pussies
>> that want to "look" like they are doing something dangerous. I
>> don't think skiing is one of them. There are beginner areas at the
>> bottom for what appears to be your type. But to haul ass and miss
>> everyone doesn't necessarily become a bad thing.
>>
>
> I don't want to see skiing go that way either, but I maintain there
> are still plenty of places to ski fast. I love skiing fast. It
> would damn near kill the sport for me if I couldn't do so. But, if
> its crowded or your in an area where most people are skiing slowly,
> it is irresponsible. Yunlong claimed there was room to be skiing
> fast where he was scolded. He also said, if I understood him
> correctly, it was near a transition to another chair. Those do tend
> to be the places which get congested, so I tend to think he was
> telling only his side of the story.
Well I've been pulled aside for making super G turns on a completely
empty run a couple of hundred yards above the slow sign. When I
pulled up and threw in a couple of quick, slow down turns as I
approached the slow sign and lift area (still empty except for the
nazi) I was told that "tucking" was not allowed. No matter the amount
of control.
Another time I was told I was making too many turns to be in control.
"No one can make that many turns, that ski is taller than you, and be
in control". I got my pass snipped for that one, I got so angry at
the guy.
>> Having read some of his bullshit, and his "arms wide" thing this
>> may/probably not have been one of those circumstances.
>>
>> That
>>> means straightlining where there are other people close by. How
>>> close is not your call. There are plenty of places you can ski
>>> fast without endangering anybody else. Use your head.
>>
>> I don't think he said he was straightlining.
>
>
> I think he did. See the part of his post still remaining at the top
> of this one.
I took that to be an example of the kinds of skiing that would be not
allowed. But given his fucked up self made definitions, I'll give you
that one.
> But now your looking for us to get out the measuring tapes. If the
> patroller felt it was serious enough to take the time out of his
> day to speak to Yunlong, then in his opinion, Yonlong was too close
> or too fast. Thats not to say every patroller's word is gospel, but
> in most cases I think they have enough to occupy their time that
> they wouldn't be stopping every skier who isn't cutting short
> radius turns..
Well if they get out the measuring tapes they have to keep them out.
I've accidentally come close before. But missed. The rule is not to
hit. And make no mistake there are idiots out there that need to be
kicked in the balls. And I don't know how he skis. I can stand on a
slope and tell you which ones need a talking too. But I've also been
the target of stupid fucking power trips from those assholes that
couldn't buy a turn if they had to. And I think on the mountain, it's
grown up territory. The benifit of the doubt should go towards
skiing, not making skiing into a Disneyland ride for the masses.
>> Just this week I was in some trees, about a 5' wide, and came upon
>> someone dawdling along in some sort of slow uneven traverses. No
>> way to see them until your upon them, I missed them by a few
>> inches. And got a little screech out of them.
>>
>
> I agree with you, they shouldn't have been there if they couldn't
> ski it. Waste of good powder and waste of somebodies time rescuing
> them when they get in trouble. But, sometimes people do stupid
> things. Like get into an area they can't handle. Thats not the same
> as skiing too quickly in a congested zone.
I think it is. Increase the penalty for those that abuse, but let us
go. If you're faint of heart maybe scrapbooking is a better ''sport"
for you (not you personally).
>> It's a big boys sport and if you want to be a skier, deal. Or stay
>> in the family (crybaby) zone where you can be protected from most
>> every occurance.
>>
>> And how can you
>
>> even begin to complain about skiers if you frequent areas that
>> aren't boardfree? I would think that the lack of manuverability
>> even by "experienced" boarders, let alone what seems to be their
>> "rules aren't for us" attitude, would keep you off of those hills.
>>
>
> We've had that discussion, its really irrelevent to this one.
Except on their best day they don't have the manuverability (control)
that a skier has.
I also know that there are lawyers and marketing and all that
bullshit to consider. All of which put more money in the pockets of
shareholders who are the pussies that want the controlled environment
to boost their egos and give them the feeling of danger without
actually exposing them to it, butt fuck 'em.
pigo
"lal_truckee" <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9fH1e.2267$FN4...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> yunlong wrote silly BS including this gem:
>> he was referring my open arms style.
That's a good one, huh?
I pretty much assume that he probably deserved what he got but there
are some real idiot patrollers out there. I just hate the lowest
common denominator setting the bar for everyone.
snoig
beautiful blue sky day and the beach was the place to be. Not really any
crowds on the slopes either because most people were doing the BBQ thing on
the beach.
However, this is the weekend (and a 3 day one for many) so the trails are
more crowded than usual so it's perfectly reasonable that the ski patrol
wanted you to slow down. Hey, I ski fast but I don't do it on the weekends
when the unwashed hordes are all over the hill. Just ski backcountry on the
weekends where you can go as fast as the conditions permit.
snoig
ant
"yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Too fast on Ridge Run? Ridge Run is THE "Broadway" of Heavenly, and is
> a wide and mild blue run, I frowned and didn't answer him.
Exactly. An attractive easy run that will have lots of people on it. bombing
down such a run without turning is NOT in control. If someone appeared in
front of you, you would need too much time to avoid them. The resort is
doing a good job in having its patrol try to prevent accidents, rather than
deal with their aftermath.
ant
Norm
>
>> Sure. No problem if thats actually the case. Do you think there exists
>> more of a problem at most resorts with people taking their kids where it
>> is unsafe or with people skiing too fast where its not appropriate?
>
> Yes I do. I think that if people think that people going fast is unsafe
> for their kids they should not take their kids, not expect people to slow
> down. I think that the only place that it's not appropriate is in a
> designated beginner area segregated from the rest of the area.
I don't think your being fair to the people who inject most of the money to
allow you and I to ride lifts into the alpine where we prefer to ski. Most
areas do in fact designate the lower end of many runs as slow skiing zones.
Not necesarily beginner zones, and not segragated, but slow skiing. The
lower end of these runs tend to gather all the higher end skiers and the
lower end ones together in the same area. Its unavoidable, its just
geography. I don't think its too much to ask to slow down in these areas. I
ski fast on the upper areas. Thats good enough for me. If I'm skiing fast on
the low end and some kid makes an unexpected turn, is he going to be any
less hurt than if it was my fault? Will I hurt any less? Am I going to have
any less trouble living with the consequences? When I learned to drive a car
they taught me it wasn't good enough for me to be in the right, I had to
look out for the other guy as well. That means being cautious and courteous
so we all get to ski another day.
>>> There are plenty of things in this world that have been homoginized and
>>> to the lowest common denomonator for the pussies that want to "look"
>>> like they are doing something dangerous. I don't think skiing is one of
>>> them. There are beginner areas at the bottom for what appears to be your
>>> type. But to haul ass and miss everyone doesn't necessarily become a bad
>>> thing.
>>>
>>
>> I don't want to see skiing go that way either, but I maintain there are
>> still plenty of places to ski fast. I love skiing fast. It would damn
>> near kill the sport for me if I couldn't do so. But, if its crowded or
>> your in an area where most people are skiing slowly, it is irresponsible.
>> Yunlong claimed there was room to be skiing fast where he was scolded. He
>> also said, if I understood him correctly, it was near a transition to
>> another chair. Those do tend to be the places which get congested, so I
>> tend to think he was telling only his side of the story.
>
> Well I've been pulled aside for making super G turns on a completely empty
> run a couple of hundred yards above the slow sign. When I pulled up and
> threw in a couple of quick, slow down turns as I approached the slow sign
> and lift area (still empty except for the nazi) I was told that "tucking"
> was not allowed. No matter the amount of control.
>
> Another time I was told I was making too many turns to be in control. "No
> one can make that many turns, that ski is taller than you, and be in
> control". I got my pass snipped for that one, I got so angry at the guy.
Take your case to the Patrol Director. "Too many turns" is just bullshit, I
don't know any patroller who would say that. I bet your complaint about that
guy would not be the first one.
Well, its really a peripheral point, but the patrollers own skiing ability
has nothing to do with his ability to decide if what a skier is doing is
safe or not. In any case the safety of all the resort's guests is his job.
Once in a while he will estimate incorrectly, but he needs to err on the
side of caution, its his job. Its not good enough to wait until someone is
hit to take action, thats too late.
> And I think on the mountain, it's grown up territory. The benifit of the
> doubt should go towards skiing, not making skiing into a Disneyland ride
> for the masses.
Higher up on the mtn, you bet. On the low end where its marked slow skiing,
how much can it hurt to take it easy? Does it really add that much time or
take away that much enjoyment to slow down the bottom end of a run? Thats
why they include black runs. They even groom a few blacks so we can really
go fast if we choose. The majority of the real revenue comes from people who
may never see a black run. Many resorts could block off the balcks
completely and not take a huge hit in skier visits, if not for the
perception that this would now be an "easy mountain".
>
>>> Just this week I was in some trees, about a 5' wide, and came upon
>>> someone dawdling along in some sort of slow uneven traverses. No way to
>>> see them until your upon them, I missed them by a few inches. And got a
>>> little screech out of them.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with you, they shouldn't have been there if they couldn't ski it.
>> Waste of good powder and waste of somebodies time rescuing them when they
>> get in trouble. But, sometimes people do stupid things. Like get into an
>> area they can't handle. Thats not the same as skiing too quickly in a
>> congested zone.
> I think it is. Increase the penalty for those that abuse, but let us go.
> If you're faint of heart maybe scrapbooking is a better ''sport" for you
> (not you personally).
Fair enough, but how do we define and recognize that abuse? Can we leave it
up to the patroller watching the hill to determine that you and I are good
enough at speed to avoid running into someone and Joe Gorby over there is
not? Wouldn't it be more fair to say: "Here you are allowed to ski fast and
here you are not."? We really don't need to be allowed to ski fast every
where, do we?
>
>>> It's a big boys sport and if you want to be a skier, deal. Or stay in
>>> the family (crybaby) zone where you can be protected from most every
>>> occurance.
>>>
>>> And how can you
>>
>>> even begin to complain about skiers if you frequent areas that aren't
>>> boardfree? I would think that the lack of manuverability even by
>>> "experienced" boarders, let alone what seems to be their "rules aren't
>>> for us" attitude, would keep you off of those hills.
>>>
>>
>> We've had that discussion, its really irrelevent to this one.
>
> Except on their best day they don't have the manuverability (control) that
> a skier has.
>
> I also know that there are lawyers and marketing and all that bullshit to
> consider. All of which put more money in the pockets of shareholders who
> are the pussies that want the controlled environment to boost their egos
> and give them the feeling of danger without actually exposing them to it,
> butt fuck 'em.
To be precise the lawyers take money out of the pockets of the shareholders.
I'm no doubt the shareholders resent the restrictions risk management places
on them exponentially more than you and I resent whatever limits it places
on our enjoyment.
Personally, it doesn't bother me a lot. When I'm on the lower portion of the
mountain, I'm "In the resort". I'm really not skiing for real until I get up
top with the wind blowing and untracked under my feet. Or beyond the ropes
where my fate is in my own hands. The limits don't affect me there. Tourists
with their kids don't go there. The bottom of the resort is just a means to
an end. Those people pay an obscene amount for an experience which doesn't
come close to the one I have. They subsidize my experience and I don't
begrudge them a little courtesy.
>
David Harris
news:1111944204.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> "I go faster if I turn," I told him.
This is unusual, and may be due to your technique. I've watched a lot of
DH an slalom races, and IIRC, the DH has fewer turns and higher speeds.
I've always assumed the two phenomena were related. I also recall that
in the days of speed skiing, no one made any turns on the course. It
would be an odd technique indeed that could go slower while going
straight.
>
> "It's a tough call, maybe you can do straightlining at nine o'clock,
> but... the way you straightline flying down the trail is reckless," he
> was referring my open arms style.
Patrollers have to make judgements based on what they see, and their
experience. Your technique, as you should have gathered from the feeback
received here, is unusual, to say the least. You're going to have to
accept that a patroller will view it as the form of a bad skier. And a
bad skier going fast in an intermediate area is unsafe. Sometimes
they'll make mistakes, but their job is to increase safety on the
mountain, and so they will err in that direction.
Although you said the run was uncrowded at the time, most patrollers know
their hills pretty well, and he has likely seen bad things happen when a
skier goes by skiing like you did. So he makes a judgement call, and
asks you to slow down. It's human nature to get defensive in a situation
like that, and to argue the point. But you cannot win those arguments.
At the end of the day, the resort management has to decide whose opinions
they will trust on issues of safety: Their trained patrollers' or those
of a complete stranger. Only one of those is sustainable.
>
> I was not going to back down; it is my right as a valid ticket holder
> and national forest user to ski what I want to ski, and you ski
> patroller or the resort is not going to depict what style I must have
> and how I'm going to ski.
>
Sounds great, but it's wrong. The patroller and the resort are exactly
the people who will tell you what you can and cannot do. Who else do you
think would do that? A forest ranger?
>
> Where did the spirit of skiing go?
>
It's right where it's always been. On the mountain.
That doesn't mean that there are no limits. You can ski fast in some
places and not in others. No big deal, find the fast places.
dh
pigo
"Slower and courteous" is one thing I don't have a problem with. The
problem is how slow is slow. Everytime I was accosted I was in
complete control and not in danger of hitting anyone. To give a few
of them credit, all it took was a couple of quick turns to
demonstrate control.
> Take your case to the Patrol Director. "Too many turns" is just
> bullshit, I don't know any patroller who would say that. I bet your
> complaint about that guy would not be the first one.
I did. They just laughed. Had they taken the pass I would have taken
them to court, but it was only a corner clip so I let it go there.
> Well, its really a peripheral point, but the patrollers own skiing
> ability has nothing to do with his ability to decide if what a
> skier is doing is safe or not. In any case the safety of all the
> resort's guests is his job. Once in a while he will estimate
> incorrectly, but he needs to err on the side of caution, its his
> job. Its not good enough to wait until someone is hit to take
> action, thats too late.
His own ability can have plenty to do with his/her attitude. "side of
caution" is just another way to say "lowest common denomonator".
>> And I think on the mountain, it's grown up territory. The benifit
>> of the doubt should go towards skiing, not making skiing into a
>> Disneyland ride for the masses.
>
>
> Higher up on the mtn, you bet. On the low end where its marked slow
> skiing, how much can it hurt to take it easy? Does it really add
> that much time or take away that much enjoyment to slow down the
> bottom end of a run? Thats why they include black runs. They even
> groom a few blacks so we can really go fast if we choose. The
> majority of the real revenue comes from people who may never see a
> black run. Many resorts could block off the balcks completely and
> not take a huge hit in skier visits, if not for the perception that
> this would now be an "easy mountain".
I do slow down at the bottom of a run. I'm talking about the ones
where they want to slow you down to a skate. Like park shitty used to
do. They're the ones I'm talking about. And I haven't been there in 8
years.
To get back to how this started. I think that IME, doofus _probably_
got a bad shake from patrol. There are a couple of slow signs at Alta
but no nazi's manning them.
> Fair enough, but how do we define and recognize that abuse? Can we
> leave it up to the patroller watching the hill to determine that
> you and I are good enough at speed to avoid running into someone
> and Joe Gorby over there is not? Wouldn't it be more fair to say:
> "Here you are allowed to ski fast and here you are not."? We really
> don't need to be allowed to ski fast every where, do we?
I would rather see that, yes. I think that there are plenty of
wannabe areas out there. Let's keep them there. I don't think a blue
run should be one of those.
> To be precise the lawyers take money out of the pockets of the
> shareholders. I'm no doubt the shareholders resent the restrictions
> risk management places on them exponentially more than you and I
> resent whatever limits it places on our enjoyment.
> Personally, it doesn't bother me a lot. When I'm on the lower
> portion of the mountain, I'm "In the resort". I'm really not skiing
> for real until I get up top with the wind blowing and untracked
> under my feet. Or beyond the ropes where my fate is in my own
> hands. The limits don't affect me there. Tourists with their kids
> don't go there. The bottom of the resort is just a means to an end.
> Those people pay an obscene amount for an experience which doesn't
> come close to the one I have. They subsidize my experience and I
> don't begrudge them a little courtesy.
I guess that's why I don't ski those places anymore.
Jeff
> > Where did the spirit of skiing go?
limited
> experience, most blue runs are generally just advanced green runs and
not
> the place for speed.
A couple of weeks ago somebody published results from a speed study
conducted by researchers associated with the helmet industry. (You can
find the report in the thread about skiing speeds started by Ron NY).
Here are some snippets related to this matter:
"Our previous unpublished work shows that speeds are highest on
'Intermediate' or 'Blue Square' trails."
"Fact: the fastest persons on the slopes will tend to be advanced level
male skiers, on groomed blue square trails, wearing helmets, under good
visibility conditions."
I agree. With the exception of a single black trail aptly named The
Rocket, the blue cruisers are made for SPEED!!
Jeff
yunlong
> "yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > And he left, left me there wondering, there was no accident, not
even
> > incident, and the run/path I skied was in no where near a skier
that
> > can be qualified as "passing," just pure flatboardingly fast;
> > staightlining on a blue run is now "speeding"/"reckless," what is
the
> > sport of skiing coming to?
> >
> > Where did the spirit of skiing go?
>
> You are the problem.
Why? Because I know how to ski fast and you don't?
> Too many innocent people got creamed by idiots like you.
Or too many idiots think that they can draw a conclusion without
knowing any facts.
If every skier skis like me there wouldn't be any accident.
> He has had to clean up the results too many times.
That's their jobs, but they cannot depict how skiers ski just because
it is convenient for them to do their jobs.
> He knew you were full of shit as soon as you told him
> you went faster when you turned.
Or just your full of shit assessment?
Flatboarding uses inside ski turn, that is, right foot heavy to turn
right (like walking); more turn means more foot pressure, and more foot
pressure means faster speed (like running); yep, flatboarding goes fast
when it turns.
> Next time don't say anything quite that stupid and maybe you
> can have some sort of dialogue.
Maybe just your idea is stupid; the patroller and I had a very
meaningful dialogue, we resolved the conflict without further ado,
didn't we?
> Read (or get a translator to read) the back of your pass. Lift
> privileges can be revoked without refund for irresponsible behaviour.
The resorts and patrollers have to follow the laws too.
And don't tell me that I ski irresponsibly when you cannot specify
"what" the "irresponsible behaviour" is. Proving your statement is
another question.
> That means straightlining where there are other people close by.
Why? Actually, straightlining, especially at higher speed, requires a
higher concentration and awareness and better ski control to do it, all
of those abilities enhance a skier performance and make he/she a better
and safer skier.
> How close is not your call.
Whose call it is?
> There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
> endangering anybody else.
Why should [advanced] skiers be excluded from a/any particular area in
the resort? Don't they pay full amount for the ticket?
> Use your head.
Yup, good advice to yourself.
:)
IS
yunlong
That was what I afraid of, bunch of nonskiers going to depict how
skiers should ski.
>
> I would have strongly questioned his statement that skiing
> fast is bad for the "environment". What the hell does that
> mean.
I think he meant it as "skiing environment," the trail.
>
> The only place I saw dedicated speed control guys in the
> Tahoe area was at Sierra at Tahoe. He was set up on a
> beginner "road" where there was some switchbacks. I stopped
> and chatted him up. Decent sort. Around here we only
> attempt (it doesn't work, really) to control speed on
> trails that are clearly marked as "SLOW" and a few really
> dangerous intersections where expert trails cross
> novice trails that are particularly heavily used.
They stopped me once there too. It was spring skiing condition, as I
came down/out the switchbacks onto the straight run on Corkscrew
(green), the snow was very sticky (read, very slow), so I
straightlined. The trail merged with Escape trail, I think, which is a
blue run. Two boarders struggling down from the trail (higher than me,
i.e. I had the right-a-way) tumbling, and I did some fancy maneuvers to
avoid them. A maintain safety supervisor stopped me and said that I did
some dangerous maneuvers, as speeding and reckless. And I asked him to
define his terms, and he said, "straightlining is speeding." And I told
him that is not a ski industry standard, and I objected his definition
and citation. He said because I "object" he definite going to give me
one. How arrogant, I told him I'll just ignore it. I showed him my
pass, he wrote down something on his notebook, but didn't give me
anything. (How's such citation being issued? No idea.) I took his name
and brought it up to his supervisor. His supervisor said he didn't know
what was going on but he supported his man's decision; nice boss, but
how ignorant/arrogant [language] in the court of laws/logic; then he
went into the details explaining to me how difficult their jobs were,
and tried to soften my stand. Though he apologized, but I didn't think
he meant that.
I told him that his man back-walling answer the "straightlining is
speeding" was very unprofessional, and he needed to train his people do
a better job. He wasn't happy, but he said if I wanted, I can take the
issue to general manager. I would that day, but the general manager
wasn't there, so I was planning to pursue it the next day.
The next day, I cooled down a bit, and didn't want them to lose their
jobs over this insignificant incident (I will sue if my right to ski in
the national forest is violated), I let it slide.
:)
IS
>
> VtSkier
yunlong
> yunlong wrote silly BS including this gem:
> > he was referring my open arms style.
>
> Patrollers concerned about safety can almost always judge a
> person's skill level,
That's a joke.
> and therefore their danger to others, by observing how they ski.
Some of them are just as ignorant or arrogant as you are;
> You deliberately skied in a way so as
> to imply poor skills (you've also bragged about these poor
> skills in this very forum, while trying to pretend your poor
> skill set actually represented advanced skills, but we shant
> revisit that discussion in this thread.)
making a statement without means of proving it.
Are you saying only your way of skiing is the right way?
> The patroller judged
> you to slow you as potentially dangerous based on observed
> skills, and asked down in a congested area.
That wasn't the case, that is to say, they don't necessarily make a
proper judgment.
> You argued.
Wouldn't want the truth being twist.
> He should have pulled your ticket and posted your picture in
> the ticket office so you wouldn't be able to buy another ever,
> IMO.
Why? Because you cannot meet the higher standard, so you are barring
others from making progress? I see now how RSAM is being corrupted.
> Patrolling is not easy and they shouldn't have to put up
> with a doofuss.
Cannot handle the heat, get out the kitchen.
> This has nothing to do with whether skiing fast
> at a resort is reasonable or within the spirit of skiing -
> sometimes it is, sometimes not.
This actually has nothing to do with how ANY skier skis. The innocence
beginners and conceited intermediates create more hazardous conditions
on the slopes than advanced skier. Why don't they stop them?
> I take my speed skis to the
> locker when ticket types start arriving on the mountain and
> get out a turnier ski - there's a time and place. A crowded
> slope is not the place.
Using WRONG inference to make your argument? You are oblivious of
truth.
>
> You want to ski fast when the resort is crowded, go out of
> bounds and knock yourself out. Literally.
Why? My lift ticket don't worth the full privileges of the resort?
In the realm of ignorance, arrogance reigns.
:)
IS
klaus
> Why? Actually, straightlining, especially at higher speed, requires a
> higher concentration and awareness and better ski control to do it, all
> of those abilities enhance a skier performance and make he/she a better
> and safer skier.
Kinda like flying through a residential area in a car makes you a
better driver.
>> How close is not your call.
> Whose call it is?
That would be the ski patrol. They have to clean up the mess.
>> There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
>> endangering anybody else.
> Why should [advanced] skiers be excluded from a/any particular area in
> the resort? Don't they pay full amount for the ticket?
You're not excluded. You can ski there. You just can't endanger other
people by skiing fast. That was the rule when you bought your
ticket. Just like the beginners can't ski the steep stuff. Should they
pay less?
-klaus
Lisa Horton
pigo wrote:
>
> "Norm" <normgr...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:KDF1e.818324$8l.464243@pd7tw1no...
>
> (snipped)
> > Sure. No problem if thats actually the case. Do you think there
> > exists more of a problem at most resorts with people taking their
> > kids where it is unsafe or with people skiing too fast where its
> > not appropriate?
>
> Yes I do. I think that if people think that people going fast is
> unsafe for their kids they should not take their kids, not expect
> people to slow down. I think that the only place that it's not
> appropriate is in a designated beginner area segregated from the rest
> of the area.
Isn't this the very reason why some places have things like a "family
zone"? Isn't it like "here's the mountain, and for those who need it,
here's the tame part of the mountain, especially for you"?
Of course, while reading my comments, consider the (inexperienced)
source. When I hit the "slow zone" near the bottom, I rarely have to
slow down, as I'm usually already going "slow enough" :)
[snip]
>
> Well if they get out the measuring tapes they have to keep them out.
> I've accidentally come close before. But missed. The rule is not to
> hit. And make no mistake there are idiots out there that need to be
> kicked in the balls. And I don't know how he skis. I can stand on a
> slope and tell you which ones need a talking too. But I've also been
> the target of stupid fucking power trips from those assholes that
> couldn't buy a turn if they had to. And I think on the mountain, it's
> grown up territory. The benifit of the doubt should go towards
> skiing, not making skiing into a Disneyland ride for the masses.
I'm part of those "masses", I guess, but I still agree with you. There
*are* (relatively) safe and sane areas, it seems to me, they're called
beginner slopes or runs.
Lisa
Mary Malmros
> lal_truckee wrote:
>
>>yunlong wrote silly BS including this gem:
>>
>>>he was referring my open arms style.
>>
>>Patrollers concerned about safety can almost always judge a
>>person's skill level,
>
>
> That's a joke.
So, nobody can make any judgments about anybody's skiing ability, and
we're all free and equal...and it's anarchy on the slopes, because
according to your world view, nobody can tell anybody that they're
skiing recklessly and need to rein it in.
Grow up. You're in a shared space, and you're sharing it with others
who want to use it differently than you do (others, let me remind you,
who also paid for a lift ticket; you seem to think that your purchase of
a lift ticket means that you can "use" the trails however you want).
Like it or not, being in a shared space means compromise. If you don't
want to compromise, you must do as others have suggested, and take
yourself to where there are no other users. Enjoy the hike, and tell us
how flatboarding in the backcountry works out.
--
Mary Malmros mal...@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.
yunlong
> Bryan wrote:
> > > Where did the spirit of skiing go?
> > You said it was a blue run and called it broadway. Well, in
> > my limited experience, most blue runs are generally just
> > advanced green runs and not the place for speed.
>
> A couple of weeks ago somebody published results from a speed
> study conducted by researchers associated with the helmet
> industry. (You can find the report in the thread about skiing
> this matter:
>
> "Our previous unpublished work shows that speeds are highest
> on 'Intermediate' or 'Blue Square' trails."
>
> "Fact: the fastest persons on the slopes will tend to be
> advanced level male skiers, on groomed blue square trails,
> wearing helmets, under good visibility conditions."
>
> I agree. With the exception of a single black trail aptly
> named The Rocket, the blue cruisers are made for SPEED!!
Yep, most black diamond trails would be too steep/too fast for
straightlining; except the extreme skiing and moguls skiing, none of
the skiing competition (e.g. Olympic Game) is conducted on a black run.
:)
IS
>
> Jeff
Norm
"yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > Where did the spirit of skiing go?
>>
>> You are the problem.
>
> Why? Because I know how to ski fast and you don't?
I can ski fast just fine, thank you.
The difference is I know where it is appropriate and where it is not.
You obviously don't have a clue.
>
>> Too many innocent people got creamed by idiots like you.
>
> Or too many idiots think that they can draw a conclusion without
> knowing any facts.
I read the facts you presented. If there is more to the story please
enlighten us.
According to what you posted you were clearly in the wrong.
>
> If every skier skis like me there wouldn't be any accident.
/rolling eyes.
>
>> He has had to clean up the results too many times.
>
> That's their jobs, but they cannot depict how skiers ski just because
> it is convenient for them to do their jobs.
("Depict" means to show something. I think the word you are looking for is
"specify". HTH)
You believe idiots running into one another is/should be a part of skiing?
Never mind take a lesson, I don't even want to be on the same hill as a
loose cannon like you.
>
>> He knew you were full of shit as soon as you told him
>> you went faster when you turned.
>
> Or just your full of shit assessment?
>
> Flatboarding uses inside ski turn, that is, right foot heavy to turn
> right (like walking); more turn means more foot pressure, and more foot
> pressure means faster speed (like running); yep, flatboarding goes fast
> when it turns.
Load of crap. More pressure means more friction. Truning out of the fall
line means less effect of gravity. You can't change the laws of physics just
because you have no idea which ski to weight in a turn.
>
>> Next time don't say anything quite that stupid and maybe you
>> can have some sort of dialogue.
>
> Maybe just your idea is stupid; the patroller and I had a very
> meaningful dialogue, we resolved the conflict without further ado,
> didn't we?
That particular immediate conflict, perhaps, but you still went away
believing erroneously that you were right and he was wrong. You will almost
certainly have that conversation again. And again until some patroller
figures out that you are not learning and takes your pass. Unless somebody
gets hurt first because of your self centered indulgence. Then it will more
likely be a lawyer you find yourself speaking with. Good luck, that was a
nice house you used to own.
>
>> Read (or get a translator to read) the back of your pass. Lift
>> privileges can be revoked without refund for irresponsible behaviour.
> The resorts and patrollers have to follow the laws too.
What laws? There is a law that says you are entitled to endanger other
peoples lives just because you think it is your right to ski any way you
please any where you please?
> And don't tell me that I ski irresponsibly when you cannot specify
> "what" the "irresponsible behaviour" is. Proving your statement is
> another question.
I can specify it all you need, but you did an adequate job of it yourself
already.
>
>> That means straightlining where there are other people close by.
>
> Why? Actually, straightlining, especially at higher speed, requires a
> higher concentration and awareness and better ski control to do it, all
> of those abilities enhance a skier performance and make he/she a better
> and safer skier.
>
>> How close is not your call.
>
> Whose call it is?
The patroller whose job it is to protect the safety of all his guests.
>
>> There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
>> endangering anybody else.
>
> Why should [advanced] skiers be excluded from a/any particular area in
> the resort? Don't they pay full amount for the ticket?
>
Advanced skiers are not excluded from anywhere. They just have to follow the
same rules everybody else does. If you don't like the rules in that
particular zone, ski somewhere else. Heavenly is a big place from what I can
tell.
yunlong
> yunlong wrote:
> > lal_truckee wrote:
> >>yunlong wrote silly BS including this gem:
> >>
> >>>he was referring my open arms style.
> >>
> >>Patrollers concerned about safety can almost always judge a
> >>person's skill level,
> >
> > That's a joke.
>
> So, nobody can make any judgments about anybody's skiing ability, and
> we're all free and equal...and it's anarchy on the slopes, because
> according to your world view, nobody can tell anybody that they're
> skiing recklessly and need to rein it in.
"Don't tell me that I ski recklessly when you cannot specify what the
'reckless skiing' is."
>
> Grow up.
Grow up yourself.
> You're in a shared space, and you're sharing it with others
> who want to use it differently than you do (others, let me remind
you,
> who also paid for a lift ticket; you seem to think that your purchase
of
> a lift ticket means that you can "use" the trails however you want).
I can do anything I want it, as long as I don't break the laws. And
that's the law of the land.
> Like it or not, being in a shared space means compromise. If you
don't
> want to compromise, you must do as others have suggested, and take
> yourself to where there are no other users. Enjoy the hike, and tell
us
> how flatboarding in the backcountry works out.
And you violet your own laws (or the laws of the land) if you stop me
before I break the laws.
:)
IS
yunlong
> yunlong <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why? Actually, straightlining, especially at higher speed, requires
a
> > higher concentration and awareness and better ski control to do it,
all
> > of those abilities enhance a skier performance and make he/she a
better
> > and safer skier.
>
> Kinda like flying through a residential area in a car makes
> you a better driver.
Illegitimate inference, we are talking about skiing, not auto traffic.
>
> >> How close is not your call.
>
> > Whose call it is?
>
> That would be the ski patrol. They have to clean up the mess.
They are caretakers, not the policy makers.
>
> >> There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
> >> endangering anybody else.
>
> > Why should [advanced] skiers be excluded from a/any particular area
in
> > the resort? Don't they pay full amount for the ticket?
>
> You're not excluded. You can ski there. You just can't
> endanger other people by skiing fast.
Ski fast doesn't automatically mean "endanger other people."
> That was the rule when you bought your ticket.
Don't tell me that I violet the rule when you cannot specify what rule
is.
> Just like the beginners can't ski the
> steep stuff. Should they pay less?
They should, but don't think any resort would agree to that. They'd say
learn to ski better, so you can enjoy all facilities they provided.
:)
IS
>
> -klaus
snoig
> Yep, most black diamond trails would be too steep/too fast for
> straightlining; except the extreme skiing and moguls skiing, none of
> the skiing competition (e.g. Olympic Game) is conducted on a black run.
???????? You obviously don't have a clue.
uglymoney
<thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Like it or not, being in a shared space means compromise. If you
>don't
>> want to compromise, you must do as others have suggested, and take
>> yourself to where there are no other users. Enjoy the hike, and tell
>us
>> how flatboarding in the backcountry works out.
>
>And you violet
Once again, you are completely wrong. Do you pay attention at all?
Mary is a rose. Roses can smell okay, some people like to have some
planted around for decoration and color, but try to walk on one of
them and you'll get stuck by a thorn.
nate
pigo
"yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> none of
> the skiing competition (e.g. Olympic Game) is conducted on a black
> run.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yunlong
> "yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > Where did the spirit of skiing go?
> >>
> >> You are the problem.
> >
> > Why? Because I know how to ski fast and you don't?
>
> I can ski fast just fine, thank you.
> The difference is I know where it is appropriate and where it is not.
What makes you think that "your" appropriateness is "appropriate"?
> You obviously don't have a clue.
That's to say, you don't have a clue on what you saying.
>
> >
> >> Too many innocent people got creamed by idiots like you.
> >
> > Or too many idiots think that they can draw a conclusion
> > without knowing any facts.
>
> I read the facts you presented. If there is more to the story
> please enlighten us.
> According to what you posted you were clearly in the wrong.
Just how "clearly" are you? Even the patroller only said I was going
too fast (not necessarily in the wrong), how do you get that idea based
on the conversation between me and the patroller that you snipped? Or
you only read what you "think" you read?
>
> >
> > If every skier skis like me there wouldn't be any accident.
>
> /rolling eyes.
Figured.
>
> >
> >> He has had to clean up the results too many times.
> >
> > That's their jobs, but they cannot depict how skiers ski
> > just because it is convenient for them to do their jobs.
>
> ("Depict" means to show something. I think the word you are
> looking for is "specify". HTH)
>
> You believe idiots running into one another is/should be a part of
skiing?
Not that I believe, but a matter of fact, don't you know?
> Never mind take a lesson, I don't even want to be on the same
> hill as a loose cannon like you.
Not sure your ignorance can make your skiing safer.
>
> >
> >> He knew you were full of shit as soon as you told him
> >> you went faster when you turned.
> >
> > Or just your full of shit assessment?
> >
> > Flatboarding uses inside ski turn, that is, right foot heavy to
turn
> > right (like walking); more turn means more foot pressure, and more
foot
> > pressure means faster speed (like running); yep, flatboarding goes
fast
> > when it turns.
>
> Load of crap. More pressure means more friction.
Not if the snow gives away under the pressure.
> Truning out of the fall line means less effect of gravity.
> You can't change the laws of physics just
> because you have no idea which ski to weight in a turn.
Just because you know little/partial doesn't mean the laws of physics
have been changed.
>
> >
> >> Next time don't say anything quite that stupid and maybe
> >> you can have some sort of dialogue.
> >
> > Maybe just your idea is stupid; the patroller and I had a
> > very meaningful dialogue, we resolved the conflict without
> > further ado, didn't we?
>
> That particular immediate conflict, perhaps, but you still
> went away believing erroneously that you were right and he was wrong.
Yes, I was right and he was wrong.
> You will almost certainly have that conversation again.
Yes, with those self-righteous bozos like you around these type of
conversation will happen again.
> And again until some patroller
> figures out that you are not learning and takes your pass. Unless
somebody
> gets hurt first because of your self centered indulgence. Then it
will more
> likely be a lawyer you find yourself speaking with. Good luck, that
was a
> nice house you used to own.
Yup, we see how you twist and turn to make your argument.
No, to speculate what might or might not happen is not a valid
[logical] argument.
> >
> >> Read (or get a translator to read) the back of your pass.
> >> Lift privileges can be revoked without refund for
> >> irresponsible behaviour.
>
> > The resorts and patrollers have to follow the laws too.
>
> What laws?
The laws of the land, US constitutions, and their own by-laws?
> There is a law that says you are entitled to endanger other
> peoples lives just because you think it is your right to ski
> any way you please any where you please?
That's your saying, not mine; to say you don't know how to infer.
>
> > And don't tell me that I ski irresponsibly when you cannot specify
> > "what" the "irresponsible behaviour" is. Proving your statement [is
valid] is
> > another question.
>
> I can specify it all you need, but you did an adequate job of
> it yourself already.
"Proving your statement [is valid] is another question."
>
> >
> >> That means straightlining where there are other people close by.
> >
> > Why? Actually, straightlining, especially at higher speed, requires
a
> > higher concentration and awareness and better ski control to do it,
all
> > of those abilities enhance a skier performance and make he/she a
better
> > and safer skier.
> >
> >> How close is not your call.
> >
> > Whose call it is?
>
> The patroller whose job it is to protect the safety of all his
guests.
The question was to ask what kind of "criteria" they go by?
>
> >
> >> There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
> >> endangering anybody else.
> >
> > Why should [advanced] skiers be excluded from a/any
> > particular area in the resort? Don't they pay full amount
> > for the ticket?
>
> Advanced skiers are not excluded from anywhere. They just have
> to follow the same rules everybody else does. If you don't
> like the rules in that particular zone, ski somewhere else.
> Heavenly is a big place from what I can tell.
The problem is there's no such rules specified; e.g. how slow is
"slow"? how close to a skier is "close"? and etc.
"Don't tell me that I violet the rule when you cannot specify what rule
is."
:)
IS
Norm
>>
>> Kinda like flying through a residential area in a car makes
>> you a better driver.
>
> Illegitimate inference, we are talking about skiing, not auto traffic.
Go see your translator. Ask him what an "Analogy" is. Report back to us.
>>
>> >> How close is not your call.
>>
>> > Whose call it is?
>>
>> That would be the ski patrol. They have to clean up the mess.
>
> They are caretakers, not the policy makers.
Thye implement the policy of the resort management. For your purposes they
are the resort.
>
>>
>> >> There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
>> >> endangering anybody else.
>>
>> > Why should [advanced] skiers be excluded from a/any particular area
> in
>> > the resort? Don't they pay full amount for the ticket?
>>
>> You're not excluded. You can ski there. You just can't
>> endanger other people by skiing fast.
>
> Ski fast doesn't automatically mean "endanger other people."
>
>> That was the rule when you bought your ticket.
>
> Don't tell me that I violet the rule when you cannot specify what rule
> is.
(Violate is the word you are grouping for. Violet is a colour. Kind of
purply blue. HTH)
The rule is no fast skiing in slow skiing zones. What part of that do you
not understand?
yunlong
Clue me in then.
:)
IS
yunlong
Silly.
:)
IS
yunlong
> "yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > and safer skier.
> >>
> >> Kinda like flying through a residential area in a car makes
> >> you a better driver.
> >
> > Illegitimate inference, we are talking about skiing, not auto
traffic.
>
> Go see your translator. Ask him what an "Analogy" is. Report back to
us.
The analogy doesn't fit.
>
> >>
> >> >> How close is not your call.
> >>
> >> > Whose call it is?
> >>
> >> That would be the ski patrol. They have to clean up the mess.
> >
> > They are caretakers, not the policy makers.
>
> Thye implement the policy of the resort management. For your
> purposes they are the resort.
Not if they operate on the national forests, the public lands.
>
> >> >> There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
> >> >> endangering anybody else.
> >>
> >> > Why should [advanced] skiers be excluded from a/any
> >> > in particular area the resort? Don't they pay full amount
> >> > for the ticket?
> >>
> >> You're not excluded. You can ski there. You just can't
> >> endanger other people by skiing fast.
> >
> > Ski fast doesn't automatically mean "endanger other people."
> >
> >> That was the rule when you bought your ticket.
> >
> > Don't tell me that I violet the rule when you cannot specify
> > what rule is.
>
> (Violate is the word you are grouping for. Violet is a colour.
> Kind of purply blue. HTH)
Ok, correction, "violate" it is.
>
> The rule is no fast skiing in slow skiing zones. What part of
> that do you not understand?
How fast is "fast," and how slow is "slow"?
:)
IS
Norm
"yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> The difference is I know where it is appropriate and where it is not.
>
> What makes you think that "your" appropriateness is "appropriate"?
Because the patroller, whose job it is to know, told you so. According to
your story.
>
>> You obviously don't have a clue.
>
> That's to say, you don't have a clue on what you saying.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Too many innocent people got creamed by idiots like you.
>> >
>> > Or too many idiots think that they can draw a conclusion
>> > without knowing any facts.
>>
>> I read the facts you presented. If there is more to the story
>> please enlighten us.
>> According to what you posted you were clearly in the wrong.
>
> Just how "clearly" are you? Even the patroller only said I was going
> too fast (not necessarily in the wrong), how do you get that idea based
> on the conversation between me and the patroller that you snipped? Or
> you only read what you "think" you read?
You are in the wrong because you came away pouting about a warning you well
deserved and needed.You are in the wrong because you seem to have no
intention of taking his good advise. You are in the wqrong because sometime
in the future some innocent person may get killed and it will be your fault.
>> >> He has had to clean up the results too many times.
>> >
>> > That's their jobs, but they cannot depict how skiers ski
>> > just because it is convenient for them to do their jobs.
>>
>> ("Depict" means to show something. I think the word you are
>> looking for is "specify". HTH)
>>
>> You believe idiots running into one another is/should be a part of
> skiing?
>
> Not that I believe, but a matter of fact, don't you know?
This is just too stupid to respond to.
>
>> Never mind take a lesson, I don't even want to be on the same
>> hill as a loose cannon like you.
>
> Not sure your ignorance can make your skiing safer.
My experience has kept me skiing safely for quite a few years now.
Its your ignorance which makes it dangerous for me and others to ski.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> He knew you were full of shit as soon as you told him
>> >> you went faster when you turned.
>> >
>> > Or just your full of shit assessment?
>> >
>> > Flatboarding uses inside ski turn, that is, right foot heavy to
> turn
>> > right (like walking); more turn means more foot pressure, and more
> foot
>> > pressure means faster speed (like running); yep, flatboarding goes
> fast
>> > when it turns.
>>
>> Load of crap. More pressure means more friction.
>
> Not if the snow gives away under the pressure.
>
>> Truning out of the fall line means less effect of gravity.
>> You can't change the laws of physics just
>> because you have no idea which ski to weight in a turn.
>
> Just because you know little/partial doesn't mean the laws of physics
> have been changed.
Thank you for acknowledging that laws of physics have not changed.
So we can forget about that particular silliness, then?
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Next time don't say anything quite that stupid and maybe
>> >> you can have some sort of dialogue.
>> >
>> > Maybe just your idea is stupid; the patroller and I had a
>> > very meaningful dialogue, we resolved the conflict without
>> > further ado, didn't we?
>>
>> That particular immediate conflict, perhaps, but you still
>> went away believing erroneously that you were right and he was wrong.
>
>
> Yes, I was right and he was wrong.
>
>> You will almost certainly have that conversation again.
>
> Yes, with those self-righteous bozos like you around these type of
> conversation will happen again.
No, it will be because you haven't learned a thing.
>
>> And again until some patroller
>> figures out that you are not learning and takes your pass. Unless
> somebody
>> gets hurt first because of your self centered indulgence. Then it
> will more
>> likely be a lawyer you find yourself speaking with. Good luck, that
> was a
>> nice house you used to own.
>
> Yup, we see how you twist and turn to make your argument.
>
> No, to speculate what might or might not happen is not a valid
> [logical] argument.
Suit yourself.
>
>> >
>> >> Read (or get a translator to read) the back of your pass.
>> >> Lift privileges can be revoked without refund for
>> >> irresponsible behaviour.
>>
>> > The resorts and patrollers have to follow the laws too.
>>
>> What laws?
>
> The laws of the land, US constitutions, and their own by-laws?
None of which give you any right to endanger anybodies else's life for the
sake of your own selfish pleasure.
Give your head a shake. Your right to swing your fist ends at my chin.
>
>> There is a law that says you are entitled to endanger other
>> peoples lives just because you think it is your right to ski
>> any way you please any where you please?
>
> That's your saying, not mine; to say you don't know how to infer.
Then you explain to me what it is you meant, that is what I am getting.
Maybe you need someone with a better command of the language to write your
posts for you.
>
>>
>> > And don't tell me that I ski irresponsibly when you cannot specify
>> > "what" the "irresponsible behaviour" is. Proving your statement [is
> valid] is
>> > another question.
>>
>> I can specify it all you need, but you did an adequate job of
>> it yourself already.
>
> "Proving your statement [is valid] is another question."
>
>>
>> >
>> >> That means straightlining where there are other people close by.
>> >
>> > Why? Actually, straightlining, especially at higher speed, requires
> a
>> > higher concentration and awareness and better ski control to do it,
> all
>> > of those abilities enhance a skier performance and make he/she a
> better
>> > and safer skier.
>> >
>> >> How close is not your call.
>> >
>> > Whose call it is?
>>
>> The patroller whose job it is to protect the safety of all his
> guests.
>
> The question was to ask what kind of "criteria" they go by?
No, you asked Whose call it is. (look up, its still there)
If you want to know what criteria they go by that is a different question,
but I will try to answer. Hopefully the question will not have changed again
by the time you read it.
The criteria is where the skiing is taking place, ie is it at a place where
slower skiers tend to congregate, or at the junction of 2 or more runs, and
do you appear in control. Your actual speed is also a factor, but it is
secondary to whether you appear in control. If you are straightlining you
will appear to be in less than full control. He has no way of judging your
experience or ability when he sees you in a straightline. Generally
speaking, an experienced skier will at least shift from edge to edge from
time to time. It does not slow you down significantly, its more fun, and it
keeps you much more prepared to change direction if you need to do so
unexpectedly. If you wish to straightline, and you feel you have the ability
to do so safely, it is not too much to ask that you do it in a plce where it
is safe for all. Its not like there is any shortage of such places.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
>> >> endangering anybody else.
>> >
>> > Why should [advanced] skiers be excluded from a/any
>> > particular area in the resort? Don't they pay full amount
>> > for the ticket?
>>
>> Advanced skiers are not excluded from anywhere. They just have
>> to follow the same rules everybody else does. If you don't
>> like the rules in that particular zone, ski somewhere else.
>> Heavenly is a big place from what I can tell.
>
> The problem is there's no such rules specified; e.g. how slow is
> "slow"? how close to a skier is "close"? and etc.
>
> "Don't tell me that I violet the rule when you cannot specify what rule
> is."
The patroller you spoke with specified the rule. He told you you should not
ski fast where you were. Your proper response should have been: "Oh, I
didn't know that, but I will correct it in the future. Thank you for letting
me know."
Norm
> traffic.
>>
>> Go see your translator. Ask him what an "Analogy" is. Report back to
> us.
>
> The analogy doesn't fit.
It fits perfectly.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> How close is not your call.
>> >>
>> >> > Whose call it is?
>> >>
>> >> That would be the ski patrol. They have to clean up the mess.
>> >
>> > They are caretakers, not the policy makers.
>>
>> Thye implement the policy of the resort management. For your
>> purposes they are the resort.
>
> Not if they operate on the national forests, the public lands.
Crap. They are responsible for the safety of the people, yourself included,
using that particular piece of National Forest.
>
>>
>> >> >> There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
>> >> >> endangering anybody else.
>> >>
>> >> > Why should [advanced] skiers be excluded from a/any
>> >> > in particular area the resort? Don't they pay full amount
>> >> > for the ticket?
>> >>
>> >> You're not excluded. You can ski there. You just can't
>> >> endanger other people by skiing fast.
>> >
>> > Ski fast doesn't automatically mean "endanger other people."
>> >
>> >> That was the rule when you bought your ticket.
>> >
>> > Don't tell me that I violet the rule when you cannot specify
>> > what rule is.
>>
>> (Violate is the word you are grouping for. Violet is a colour.
>> Kind of purply blue. HTH)
>
> Ok, correction, "violate" it is.
>
>>
>> The rule is no fast skiing in slow skiing zones. What part of
>> that do you not understand?
>
> How fast is "fast," and how slow is "slow"?
That is open to the interpretation of the ski patroller in question. His
judgement is law. The reason he warned you instead of pulling your pass
right away was because it is difficult for you to gauge such things. He
stopped you and politely told you what you were doing was inappropriate. If
there were speed limit signs and skiers came with speedometers installed you
would have received a ticket. You should have thanked him for giving you the
break and carried on your way at a more sensable pace.
Norm
> Clue me in then.
I've been watching people here genuinely trying to do exactly that for the
better part of this season Yunlong.
I'm thinking its gonna take a bigger hammer than we got here.
uglymoney
<thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The first clue will not arrive until after you complete a marathon
forty eight hour meditatory flatboarding session. I urge you to lose
your boundaries and inhibitions, and become one with the hours of
awakening before you.
Please start now by repeating the following phrase.
Yow who speak not, keep foot out of mouth.
nate
snoig
http://www.parkcitymountain.com/winter/menu_01/03_Resort_Maps/01_Trail_Map/
Click on the base area map then turn on the '2002 Olympic Areas' then turn
on the 'Most Difficult' trails. Well what do you know, the '2002 Olympic
Areas' are almost all 'Most Difficult'
Or maybe the 2002 Olympic downhill at Snowbasin:
http://www.snowbasin.com/images/trail_maps/john_paul_area.jpg
Hmmm, looks like only one or two blue trails on that part of the mountain.
Why they even classify most of that part of the mountain as double diamond.
Or Beaver Creek, home to many World Cup and other Olympic caliber racing.
http://beavercreek.snow.com/BCbase/wrap/theme0/images/map.bop.race.jpg
Since they don't have the difficulty designation on that map, here's one for
comparison:
http://beavercreek.snow.com/map.zoom.asp?map=talonschallenge
Looks like all diamond and double diamond trails once again.
How about Squaw Valley, home of the 1960 Olympics. Not sure where the
course was but I see the Olympic Lady and Olympic Lady Express lifts going
up KT-22:
http://www.squaw.com/winter/mtnmap_kt.html
Again, looks like all black diamond on KT-22.
Maybe the map from 1980-Whiteface:
http://whiteface.com/WHITEFACEweb-02.pdf
Not sure where the slalom courses were set up but looking at the map, you
would have a hard time setting up something that wasn't black diamond. And
I'm sure the GS and downhill took the steepest line from the top.
Now that I have clued you in, how about showing us some examples of Olympic
calliber courses that are run on blue trails?
snoig
Alan Baker
"yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm afraid you're just wrong about this. The runs that are appropriate
for the slalom and GS events are almost always black diamond for their
entire length. Downhill and SuperG may not be, but that is simply a
factor of their length and that it is rare to have a run that is long
enough and black diamond steep from top to bottom.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Mary Malmros
> Mary Malmros wrote:
>
>>yunlong wrote:
>>
>>>lal_truckee wrote:
>>>
>>>>yunlong wrote silly BS including this gem:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>he was referring my open arms style.
>>>>
>>>>Patrollers concerned about safety can almost always judge a
>>>>person's skill level,
>>>
>>>That's a joke.
>>
>>So, nobody can make any judgments about anybody's skiing ability, and
>
>
>>we're all free and equal...and it's anarchy on the slopes, because
>>according to your world view, nobody can tell anybody that they're
>>skiing recklessly and need to rein it in.
>
>
> "Don't tell me that I ski recklessly when you cannot specify what the
> 'reckless skiing' is."
Who are you quoting, the Founding Fathers? Go get your ego lanced, mop
up the pus, and get better soon.
>>Grow up.
>
>
> Grow up yourself.
So what's the evidence of my immaturity -- that I reminded you that the
slopes aren't your exclusive sandbox? Stop being such a damn selfish
toddler.
>>You're in a shared space, and you're sharing it with others
>>who want to use it differently than you do (others, let me remind
>
> you,
>
>>who also paid for a lift ticket; you seem to think that your purchase
>
> of
>
>>a lift ticket means that you can "use" the trails however you want).
>
>
> I can do anything I want it, as long as I don't break the laws. And
> that's the law of the land.
If you think that there has to be some kind of law on the books
outlawing a specific action to make it possible for someone to forbid
your doing it, you're completely and utterly wrong. Ever go into a
store near a ski area and see a sign on the door staying, "No ski boots
in store"? Gee, there's no law saying that you can't wear ski boots in
the 7-11, so where do they get off telling you that you can't wear your
ski boots in their store?
>>Like it or not, being in a shared space means compromise. If you
>
> don't
>
>>want to compromise, you must do as others have suggested, and take
>>yourself to where there are no other users. Enjoy the hike, and tell
>
> us
>
>>how flatboarding in the backcountry works out.
>
>
> And you violet your own laws (or the laws of the land) if you stop me
> before I break the laws.
So if you're weaving down the road in your car, a cop can't stop you
until you run someone else off the road, is that it? If you really
believe this, I hope your tickets, tags and driver's license all get
pulled ASAP.
Alan Baker
"yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> He knew you were full of shit as soon as you told him
> > >> you went faster when you turned.
> > >
> > > Or just your full of shit assessment?
> > >
> > > Flatboarding uses inside ski turn, that is, right foot heavy to
> turn
> > > right (like walking); more turn means more foot pressure, and more
> foot
> > > pressure means faster speed (like running); yep, flatboarding goes
> fast
> > > when it turns.
> >
> > Load of crap. More pressure means more friction.
>
> Not if the snow gives away under the pressure.
>
> > Truning out of the fall line means less effect of gravity.
> > You can't change the laws of physics just
> > because you have no idea which ski to weight in a turn.
>
> Just because you know little/partial doesn't mean the laws of physics
> have been changed.
Sorry. Based on what you said, he is essentially correct and you are
completely out to lunch. It is possible to make one's turns faster or
slower, but:
a. the method involved is to "pump" from forward to initiate the turn,
to backward at the finish.
b. it will always be slower (both in raw speed and time to the bottom --
obviously the turns will lengthen the distance skied) than
straightlining.
Alan Baker
"yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Pardon me, but if they were "higher" than you, how is it you *needed* to
avoid them?
> some dangerous maneuvers, as speeding and reckless. And I asked him to
> define his terms, and he said, "straightlining is speeding." And I told
> him that is not a ski industry standard, and I objected his definition
> and citation. He said because I "object" he definite going to give me
> one. How arrogant, I told him I'll just ignore it. I showed him my
> pass, he wrote down something on his notebook, but didn't give me
> anything. (How's such citation being issued? No idea.) I took his name
> and brought it up to his supervisor. His supervisor said he didn't know
> what was going on but he supported his man's decision; nice boss, but
> how ignorant/arrogant [language] in the court of laws/logic; then he
> went into the details explaining to me how difficult their jobs were,
> and tried to soften my stand. Though he apologized, but I didn't think
> he meant that.
>
> I told him that his man back-walling answer the "straightlining is
> speeding" was very unprofessional, and he needed to train his people do
> a better job. He wasn't happy, but he said if I wanted, I can take the
> issue to general manager. I would that day, but the general manager
> wasn't there, so I was planning to pursue it the next day.
>
> The next day, I cooled down a bit, and didn't want them to lose their
> jobs over this insignificant incident (I will sue if my right to ski in
> the national forest is violated), I let it slide.
>
> :)
> IS
>
> >
> > VtSkier
--
Mary Malmros
Well, clearly you started skiing sometime since February of 2002. If
you'd been skiing at that time, you might have noticed an event known as
the Winter Olympics, and the men's downhill course, known as Grizzly.
Mary Malmros
> Norm wrote:
>
>>"yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>and safer skier.
>>>>
>>>>Kinda like flying through a residential area in a car makes
>>>>you a better driver.
>>>
>>>Illegitimate inference, we are talking about skiing, not auto
>
> traffic.
>
>>Go see your translator. Ask him what an "Analogy" is. Report back to
>
> us.
>
> The analogy doesn't fit.
It fits just fine. Shared space, traffic, rules for the safety of all.
That's what supports the analogy -- if you want to say it doesn't
fit, say how.
pigo
Bob
"Norm" <normgr...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:7T_1e.831593$8l.176970@pd7tw1no...
>
> "yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1112044387.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > traffic.
> >>
> >> Go see your translator. Ask him what an "Analogy" is. Report back to
> > us.
> >
> > The analogy doesn't fit.
>
>
> It fits perfectly.
Just like the laws of physics are the same in skiing and driving.
Bob
Bob
> I can ski fast just fine, thank you.
> The difference is I know where it is appropriate and where it is not.
> You obviously don't have a clue.
I seen a few drivers with the same opinion about their driving. Road hazards
all.
Bob
Bryan
"Jeff" <joes...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112023954.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Bryan wrote:
>> > Where did the spirit of skiing go?
> limited
>> experience, most blue runs are generally just advanced green runs and
> not
>> the place for speed.
>
> A couple of weeks ago somebody published results from a speed study
> conducted by researchers associated with the helmet industry. (You can
> find the report in the thread about skiing speeds started by Ron NY).
> Here are some snippets related to this matter:
>
> "Our previous unpublished work shows that speeds are highest on
> 'Intermediate' or 'Blue Square' trails."
>
> "Fact: the fastest persons on the slopes will tend to be advanced level
> male skiers, on groomed blue square trails, wearing helmets, under good
> visibility conditions."
>
> I agree. With the exception of a single black trail aptly named The
> Rocket, the blue cruisers are made for SPEED!!
>
>
That's an interesting view on the blue vs black speeds.
I can see where more people would ski faster on blues because they feel more
in control and the risk of a fall seems less likely and less severe.
And on the black runs most of these same skiers would ski with more control
to avoid being carried off in a ski patrol basket.
I wonder if most of the injuries occur on the blue runs when you break it
down to percentages.
All I know is where I ski, the blue runs are crowded compared to the black
runs. On weekdays when I'm the only one on a blue run I go as fast as I
dare. On weekends, I ski much slower to avoid collisions.
VtSkier
up you seat belt every time was, "Most accidents occur
within 10 miles of home." This is a stupid true statement.
Of course most accidents occur within 10 miles of home,
most driving occurs within 10 miles of home.
It's probably true (though I don't have figures) that most
injuries AND COLLISIONS occur on blue runs because there
are more skiers on blue runs. The fact that the skiers are
of lower skill levels may also have something to do with it.
VtSkier
Jeff
None of this has anything to do with the original item. A commenter
concluded that blue runs "were not the place for speed." I posted the
results of a study that contradicted that claim. While they weren't
included in the study, Olympic calliber skiers comprise such a
miniscule portion of the general skiing population that I'm sure we
could add them without skewing the results.
Jeff
Jeff
> It's probably true (though I don't have figures) that most
> injuries AND COLLISIONS occur on blue runs because there
> are more skiers on blue runs. The fact that the skiers are
> of lower skill levels may also have something to do with it.
>
> VtSkier
I think you missed a key word in their conclusion:
"Fact: the fastest persons on the slopes will tend to be *advanced*
[emphasis added] level male skiers, on groomed blue square trails,
wearing helmets, under good visibility conditions."
I don't know about you but I ski the whole mountain, not just the
blacks. (Note: I don't consider the bunny slope part of the "whole
mountain.") I like to start at one end and move across it to the other.
Cheers,
Jeff
pigo
I don't give a shit about the "original" item. I've been to plenty of
world cup races and one Olympic one. ALL on "black" runs. I've also
skied on the runs before and after and was a gate keeper one time.
That is just a rediculous statement.
I've also skied with world cup skiers. Some of their skills on the
race course didn't convert well to powder/crud/steep, what today
would be called "extreme" skiing I suppose.
jay
attempt describes...hit a tree and die in Winter Park on a blue run March
15, 2005 shortly before 10am. I am glad the guy did not hit another skier
just a tree. Your are not that great of an athlete and the rest of us are
lucky they nailed you!! Realize your limited ability and quit acting like
an idiot!
yunlong
> "yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> The difference is I know where it is appropriate and where it is
not.
> >
> > What makes you think that "your" appropriateness is "appropriate"?
>
> Because the patroller, whose job it is to know, told you so.
> According to your story.
What happen to the patroller "whose job is to know but doesn't know"?
Why should I sacrify my freedom of expression for his
incompetent/erroreous judgment?
What are the criteria and standard is in question.
>
> >
> >> You obviously don't have a clue.
> >
> > That's to say, you don't have a clue on what you saying.
> >
> >> >> Too many innocent people got creamed by idiots like you.
> >> >
> >> > Or too many idiots think that they can draw a conclusion
> >> > without knowing any facts.
> >>
> >> I read the facts you presented. If there is more to the
> >> story please enlighten us.
> >> According to what you posted you were clearly in the wrong.
> >
> > Just how "clearly" are you? Even the patroller only said I was
going
> > too fast (not necessarily in the wrong), how do you get that idea
based
> > on the conversation between me and the patroller that you snipped?
Or
> > you only read what you "think" you read?
>
> You are in the wrong because you came away pouting about a warning
you well
> deserved and needed.You are in the wrong because you seem to have no
> intention of taking his good advise. You are in the wqrong because
sometime
> in the future some innocent person may get killed and it will be your
fault.
What a whiner; "no, to speculate what might or might not happen is not
a valid [logical] argument."
>
> >> >> He has had to clean up the results too many times.
> >> >
> >> > That's their jobs, but they cannot depict how skiers ski
> >> > just because it is convenient for them to do their jobs.
> >>
> >> ("Depict" means to show something. I think the word you are
> >> looking for is "specify". HTH)
> >>
> >> You believe idiots running into one another is/should be a
> >> part of skiing?
> >
> > Not that I believe, but a matter of fact, don't you know?
>
> This is just too stupid to respond to.
Why do you ask in the first place?
> >
> >> Never mind take a lesson, I don't even want to be on the same
> >> hill as a loose cannon like you.
> >
> > Not sure your ignorance can make your skiing safer.
>
> My experience has kept me skiing safely for quite a few years now.
> Its your ignorance which makes it dangerous for me and others to ski.
If you are really such a nerverack, you probably shouldn't take the
sport of skiing then.
Why do you ski?
>
> >> >> He knew you were full of shit as soon as you told him
> >> >> you went faster when you turned.
> >> >
> >> > Or just your full of shit assessment?
> >> >
> >> > Flatboarding uses inside ski turn, that is, right foot
> >> > heavy to turn
> >> > right (like walking); more turn means more foot pressure,
> >> > and more foot pressure means faster speed (like running);
> >> > yep, flatboarding goes fast when it turns.
> >>
> >> Load of crap. More pressure means more friction.
> >
> > Not if the snow gives away under the pressure.
> >
> >> Truning out of the fall line means less effect of gravity.
> >> You can't change the laws of physics just
> >> because you have no idea which ski to weight in a turn.
> >
> > Just because you know little/partial doesn't mean the laws
> > of physics have been changed.
>
> Thank you for acknowledging that laws of physics have not changed.
> So we can forget about that particular silliness, then?
"That particular silliness" of "you know little/partial"? Sure, why
not, overlook your own shortfall just reflecting exactly how "you know
little/partial."
> >> >
> >> >> Next time don't say anything quite that stupid and maybe
> >> >> you can have some sort of dialogue.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe just your idea is stupid; the patroller and I had a
> >> > very meaningful dialogue, we resolved the conflict
> >> > without further ado, didn't we?
> >>
> >> That particular immediate conflict, perhaps, but you still
> >> went away believing erroneously that you were right and he was
wrong.
> >
> > Yes, I was right and he was wrong.
> >
> >> You will almost certainly have that conversation again.
> >
> > Yes, with those self-righteous bozos like you around these
> > type of conversation will happen again.
>
> No, it will be because you haven't learned a thing.
I don't stuff myself with useless thinking.
> >
> >> And again until some patroller
> >> figures out that you are not learning and takes your pass.
> >> Unless somebody gets hurt first because of your self
> >> centered indulgence. Then it will more
> >> likely be a lawyer you find yourself speaking with. Good
> >> luck, that was a nice house you used to own.
> >
> > Yup, we see how you twist and turn to make your argument.
> >
> > No, to speculate what might or might not happen is not a
> > valid [logical] argument.
>
> Suit yourself.
Only logical.
> >> >> Read (or get a translator to read) the back of your
> >> >> pass.Lift privileges can be revoked without refund for
> >> >> irresponsible behaviour.
> >>
> >> > The resorts and patrollers have to follow the laws too.
> >>
> >> What laws?
> >
> > The laws of the land, US constitutions, and their own by-laws?
>
> None of which give you any right to endanger anybodies else's
> life for the sake of your own selfish pleasure.
Are you a lousy debater or just plain stupid? Where did I claim I have
a right to endanger "anybodies else's life for the sake of your own
selfish pleasure"?
> Give your head a shake. Your right to swing your fist ends at my
chin.
No, you should do it yourself, for the stupidity.
> >
> >> There is a law that says you are entitled to endanger other
> >> peoples lives just because you think it is your right to
> >> ski any way you please any where you please?
> >
> > That's your saying, not mine; to say you don't know how to infer.
>
> Then you explain to me what it is you meant, that is what I am
getting.
> Maybe you need someone with a better command of the language to write
your
> posts for you.
Or you need to learn how to read better?
Not if you read deeper, the "criteria" is automatically implied.
You are only speculating.
There's no "hard" number, there's no rules/laws. That is the rule of
law, so is the law of rule.
> >> >> There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
> >> >> endangering anybody else.
> >> >
> >> > Why should [advanced] skiers be excluded from a/any
> >> > particular area in the resort? Don't they pay full amount
> >> > for the ticket?
> >>
> >> Advanced skiers are not excluded from anywhere. They just have
> >> to follow the same rules everybody else does. If you don't
> >> like the rules in that particular zone, ski somewhere else.
> >> Heavenly is a big place from what I can tell.
> >
> > The problem is there's no such rules specified; e.g. how
> > slow is "slow"? how close to a skier is "close"? and etc.
> >
> > "Don't tell me that I violet the rule when you cannot
> > specify what rule is."
>
> The patroller you spoke with specified the rule.
No, he cannot specify it.
> He told you you should not
> ski fast where you were. Your proper response should have been: "Oh,
I
> didn't know that, but I will correct it in the future. Thank you for
letting
> me know."
Why should I take his incompetent nonsense?
:)
IS
yunlong
> "yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1112044387.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > traffic.
> >>
> >> Go see your translator. Ask him what an "Analogy" is. Report back
to
> > us.
> >
> > The analogy doesn't fit.
>
> It fits perfectly.
In your ignorance, maybe; how does it fit?
> >> >> >> How close is not your call.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Whose call it is?
> >> >>
> >> >> That would be the ski patrol. They have to clean up the mess.
> >> >
> >> > They are caretakers, not the policy makers.
> >>
> >> Thye implement the policy of the resort management. For your
> >> purposes they are the resort.
> >
> > Not if they operate on the national forests, the public lands.
>
> Crap. They are responsible for the safety of the people,
> yourself included, using that particular piece of National Forest.
So they have to follow the laws of the land.
> >> >> >> There are plenty of places you can ski fast without
> >> >> >> endangering anybody else.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Why should [advanced] skiers be excluded from a/any
> >> >> > in particular area the resort? Don't they pay full
> >> >> > amount for the ticket?
> >> >>
> >> >> You're not excluded. You can ski there. You just can't
> >> >> endanger other people by skiing fast.
> >> >
> >> > Ski fast doesn't automatically mean "endanger other people."
> >> >
> >> >> That was the rule when you bought your ticket.
> >> >
> >> > Don't tell me that I violet the rule when you cannot specify
> >> > what rule is.
> >>
> >> (Violate is the word you are grouping for. Violet is a colour.
> >> Kind of purply blue. HTH)
> >
> > Ok, correction, "violate" it is.
> >
> >> The rule is no fast skiing in slow skiing zones. What part
> >> of that do you not understand?
> >
> > How fast is "fast," and how slow is "slow"?
>
> That is open to the interpretation of the ski patroller in
> question. His judgement is law.
None sense.
> The reason he warned you instead of pulling your pass
> right away was because it is difficult for you to gauge such things.
The reason he didn't do anything maybe was because he realized he made
a wrong judgment and amended it by simply leaving?
> He stopped you and politely told you what you were doing was
inappropriate. If
> there were speed limit signs and skiers came with speedometers
installed you
> would have received a ticket.
That's a big IF; "if" there were such a sign, I would not do what I
have done.
> You should have thanked him for giving you the
> break and carried on your way at a more sensable pace.
Your speculations are pathetic.
:)
IS
Norm
"VtSkier" <VtS...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3at0g1F...@individual.net...
>> I can see where more people would ski faster on blues because they feel
>> more in control and the risk of a fall seems less likely and less severe.
>> And on the black runs most of these same skiers would ski with more
>> control to avoid being carried off in a ski patrol basket.
>> I wonder if most of the injuries occur on the blue runs when you break it
>> down to percentages.
>> All I know is where I ski, the blue runs are crowded compared to the
>> black runs. On weekdays when I'm the only one on a blue run I go as fast
>> as I dare. On weekends, I ski much slower to avoid collisions.
> One of the things "they" used to say to get you to buckle
> up you seat belt every time was, "Most accidents occur
> within 10 miles of home." This is a stupid true statement.
> Of course most accidents occur within 10 miles of home,
> most driving occurs within 10 miles of home.
>
> It's probably true (though I don't have figures) that most
> injuries AND COLLISIONS occur on blue runs because there
> are more skiers on blue runs. The fact that the skiers are
> of lower skill levels may also have something to do with it.
Its anecdotal and I don't have access to figures either, but most wrecks I
respond to are on blue or green runs. In almost 10 seasons I don't think
I've been to a half dozen incidents on black runs. Collisions (between
skiers, as opposed to fixed objects) almost always happen where 2 or more
trails merge, usually within site of a lift loading area.
Jeff
Well I care because my meaning has been distorted by this thread...
bdubya
<thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Last Friday, after I bombed down the Ridge Run, Heavenly, a ski
>patroller caught up with me when I was to make a transit to the Powder
>Bowl, wanted to have a "chat" with me.
>
>"You are going too fast," he said.
>
>Too fast on Ridge Run? Ridge Run is THE "Broadway" of Heavenly, and is
>a wide and mild blue run, I frowned and didn't answer him.
Bad analogy; the REAL "Broadway" is both wide and mild, but driving
it at high speed would be grossly irresponsible because it's usually a
TRAFFIC JAM.
Wait, maybe that's a good analogy after all....but I digress. You had
a good question:
>
<big snip>
>
>Where did the spirit of skiing go?
The spirit of skiing remains; the question is, why did you lose touch
with it? The spirit of skiing is like to Tao; it persists, it's
dynamic, it returns as it goes, and if you think it's gone missing,
you might want to check your head.
When faced with a mogul field, the fool seeks to impose his own line
upon the slope, contesting with the bumps and setting his strength
against them, and he finds frustration and burning quads. The sage
humbly accepts the line which is offered, yielding to the bumps and
flowing around them as water, and he finds joy in so doing.
When faced with a powder field, the fool seeks to force his turn,
abruptly snapping his skis around through the snow, and he flounders.
The sage waits patiently for his turn; calmly rising and letting his
skis come around as they will, and he soars.
When faced with a slope of sun-baked crust, the fool skis out onto it,
breaking through, jump-turning and flailing, and is soon sweaty and
dripping. The sage abstains and goes instead to find the shaded
slope, and is soon happy and grinning.
When admonished by a patroller for skiing too fast, the fool argues,
saying "no, it's alright for ME to go that fast; I'm a GOOD skier",
and then bitches about it for many days after; whether in the bar or
on the 'net, with each retelling of the story he tastes anew his own
frustration. The sage nods quietly, saying "hey, sorry, dude", and
then finds a run where he can rip without getting the patrollers all
uptight; whether turning or straightlining, with each moment he
tastes anew the spirit of skiing.
HTH,
bw
bdubya
wrote:
Sounds like you've never tried flat-tiring technique.
bw
Jeff
/me nods in agreement and wonders if he finally found common ground
with a George W. Bush supporter....
wildthing
> Last Friday, after I bombed down the Ridge Run, Heavenly, a ski
> patroller caught up with me when I was to make a transit to the Powder
> Bowl, wanted to have a "chat" with me.
>
> "You are going too fast," he said.
I've had this happen to me a hundred times. From the post, there is no way
to know who was "in the right". Some patrollers are "born-againers" who
lecture everybody with zeal and can't ski worth a crap. Some skiers are
yahoos and go way too fast on crowded hills and terrify my aging parents who
have the right to ski without being creamed.
It's a fine line.
When I get pulled over by the speed cops, I apologize profusely and thank
the patroller for doing a great job and then when he's gone, I put it back
in high gear. I know that I'm a safe skier and I know that he's only doing
his job. This way, we are both happy.
When I ski in the east, I always get bagged for "skiing out of bounds".
"That hill is closed" says the patroller.
"Looks open to me", I say.
"Ah, come on. It only has two inches of snow on it ?"
"That's plenty for me and there is no sign that says it's closed." I say.
The patrollers don't want people to rock ski. "You can handle it but we
don't want some kids to follow you down".
"Well sir, that's how I learned to ski rocks. When I was a kid."
I've had this conversation a hundred times.
Norm
"wildthing" <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1Ag2e.7168$H06....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "That's plenty for me and there is no sign that says it's closed." I say.
>
> The patrollers don't want people to rock ski. "You can handle it but we
> don't want some kids to follow you down".
Or perhaps he would prefer not to wreck his own skis and/or injure himself
going down there to rescue somebody who thought that was the only place on
the hill good enough to ski.
Bob
"bdubya" <bdu...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
> >> > The analogy doesn't fit.
> >>
> >>
> >> It fits perfectly.
> >
> >Just like the laws of physics are the same in skiing and driving.
>
> Sounds like you've never tried flat-tiring technique.
LOL
Bob
Walt
<merciful snip of much whining>
> Last Friday, after I bombed down the Ridge Run, Heavenly, a ski
> patroller caught up with me...
> "You are going too fast," he said.
> "You should turn more," he said.
> "I go faster if I turn," I told him.
This is classic. "But officer, I drive better when I'm drunk."
> Where did the spirit of skiing go?
See bw's post. Not that it's likely to penetrate that thick skull of
yours, but it's there if you're willing to listen.
--
//-Walt
//
// Anybody seen any candy yet?
pigo
But you're not the one that said that Olympic Ski Runs aren't on
black runs. Youngloon was.
Jeff
"Youngloon" - too funny!
yunlong
> On 27 Mar 2005 09:23:24 -0800, "yunlong"
> <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Last Friday, after I bombed down the Ridge Run, Heavenly, a
> > ski patroller caught up with me when I was to make a transit
> > to the Powder Bowl, wanted to have a "chat" with me.
> >
> >"You are going too fast," he said.
> >
> >Too fast on Ridge Run? Ridge Run is THE "Broadway" of
> > Heavenly, and is a wide and mild blue run, I frowned and
> > didn't answer him.
>
> Bad analogy; the REAL "Broadway" is both wide and mild, but
> driving it at high speed would be grossly irresponsible
> because it's usually a TRAFFIC JAM.
>
> Wait, maybe that's a good analogy after all....but I digress.
> You had a good question:
>
> <big snip>
>
> >Where did the spirit of skiing go?
>
> The spirit of skiing remains;
Not what I found among those pedantic comments and stale bickertrips
received on this subject.
> the question is, why did you
> lose touch with it? The spirit of skiing is like to Tao; it
> persists, it's dynamic, it returns as it goes, and if you
> think it's gone missing, you might want to check your head.
Check, ...empty;
I used to think that since skiing is an advanturous sport, the spirit
of skiing is naturally become the driving force to make one/skier
wanting to ski faster, to jump higher, to turn quicker, etc., and above
all better oneself to reach higher (highest) level skill, so it/skiing
enables the sker to get lost in the great outdoor and the vast
wilderness, to explore the true nature, and to/maybe find oneself, and
find a meaningful skier life style. But I didn't find any of those in
this newsgroup.
Here comes another question, what makes/is a skier?
>
> When faced with a mogul field, the fool seeks to impose his
> own line upon the slope, contesting with the bumps and setting
> his strength against them, and he finds frustration and
> burning quads. The sage humbly accepts the line which is
> offered, yielding to the bumps and flowing around them as
> water, and he finds joy in so doing.
:) Fancy talking; around the back of bumps/moguls are all hardpacked
ice with all loose snow scraped, there's no "flow-around," only
hardpounding slide; a master flatboarder rides on middle--where the
loose snow are--contour with the strength of gravity.
>
> When faced with a powder field, the fool seeks to force his
> turn,abruptly snapping his skis around through the snow, and
> he flounders. The sage waits patiently for his turn; calmly
> rising and letting his skis come around as they will, and he soars.
The master flatboarder rides on the "sweet-spots" (both feet together),
does the "twist."
>
> When faced with a slope of sun-baked crust, the fool skis out
> onto it,breaking through, jump-turning and flailing, and is
> soon sweaty and dripping. The sage abstains and goes instead
> to find the shaded slope, and is soon happy and grinning.
Even happier, though less grinning, the master flatboarder drops in the
superpipe.
>
> When admonished by a patroller for skiing too fast, the fool
> argues, saying "no, it's alright for ME to go that fast; I'm a
> GOOD skier", and then bitches about it for many days after;
The master flatboarder said, "specify the rules, and I'll follow."
> whether in the bar or on the 'net, with each retelling of the
> story he tastes anew his own frustration.
The freedom of expression/speech, and the ultimate freedom--Tai Chi
Skiing--the oneness with gravity, worth all the troubles to fight for.
> The sage nods
> quietly, saying "hey, sorry, dude", and then finds a run where
> he can rip without getting the patrollers all uptight;
Getting the patroller all uptight is not the purpose of flatboarding,
so whether or not they are uptight is not a concern of flatboarding;
> whether turning or straightlining, with each moment he tastes
> anew the spirit of skiing.
but the spirit of skiing is.
>
> HTH,
What does it stand for?
:)
IS
> bw
klaus
> I used to think that since skiing is an advanturous sport, the spirit
> of skiing is naturally become the driving force to make one/skier
> wanting to ski faster, to jump higher, to turn quicker, etc., and above
> all better oneself to reach higher (highest) level skill, so it/skiing
> enables the sker to get lost in the great outdoor and the vast
> wilderness, to explore the true nature, and to/maybe find oneself, and
> find a meaningful skier life style. But I didn't find any of those in
> this newsgroup.
Nor will you find it at the R-r-r-r-r-r-resort. If you want to get
lost in the wilderness, try someplace that doesn't have Green, Blue or
Black runs. Try parking somewhere where there is no parking attendant.
If you want to find yourself, try a place without a trail map.
If you want adventure, don't pay someone to groom it.
You want true nature, wrestle a bear.
If you want a good answer on USENET, don't ask a question, post the
wrong answer.
HTH,
-klaus
Walt
> Here comes another question, what makes/is a skier?
I would've figured that you knew this already, but since you don't, I'll
explain:
When a boy skier meets a girl skier and they really, really like each
other, they perform this "magical dance" where the boy skier plants a
tiny little seed inside the girl skier's tummy. The next morning, he
deposits her underwear in the resort's bra tree so that the coupling may
be properly blessed by Ullr. A few months later, the stork arrives with
a little basket with a baby skier inside.
And that's how skiers are made. Any further questions?
--
//-Walt
//
// Got Candy?
yunlong
lal_truckee
> klaus wrote:
>CLIP
>>You want true nature, wrestle a bear.
>
>
> Been there, done that.
>
> http://www.taomartialarts.com/crn/crn_p_ht_xc.jpg
Where's the bear?
Walt
> klaus wrote:
>>You want true nature, wrestle a bear.
>
> Been there, done that.
>
> http://www.taomartialarts.com/crn/crn_p_ht_xc.jpg
She doesn't look much like a bear to me.
--
//-Walt
//
//
yunlong
klaus
> Been there, done that.
> http://www.taomartialarts.com/crn/crn_p_ht_xc.jpg
Did what, exactly? It doesn't really look like a bar rasslin' getup.
-klaus
Sam Seiber
>
> Last Friday, after I bombed down the Ridge Run, Heavenly, a ski
> patroller caught up with me when I was to make a transit to the Powder
> Bowl, wanted to have a "chat" with me.
Isn't Heavenly owned by Vail Resorts? Thought so. It is just
their way. Ski Fast, Lose Pass.
Sam "f*&k Vail Resorts" Seiber
yunlong
> In article <1112136216.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
yunlong
> says...
>
> >> You want true nature, wrestle a bear.
> >
> >Been there, done that.
> >
> >http://www.taomartialarts.com/crn/crn_p_ht_xc.jpg
>
Somewhere in the upper part of Kenai Peninsula, AK; the rail connected
Anchorage and Cordova, but the train didn't run during the winter
months, iirc.
> Where's the bear?
Bears hibernate in the winter.
> Oh... Must have been a restless night.
Yes, and no, a wolfpack near by was howling all night on that trip.
:)
IS
>
> -K
VtSkier
If anybody could come up with the correct answer,
I knew it would be you. Thanks Walt.
uglymoney
<thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>snoig wrote:
>> "yunlong" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1112035832....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Yep, most black diamond trails would be too steep/too fast
>> > for straightlining; except the extreme skiing and moguls
>> > skiing, none of the skiing competition (e.g. Olympic Game)
>> > is conducted on a black run.
>> ???????? You obviously don't have a clue.
>
>Clue me in then.
>
The first clue will not arrive until after you complete a marathon
forty eight hour meditatory flatboarding session. I urge you to lose
your boundaries and inhibitions, and become one with the hours of
awakening before you.
Please start now by repeating the following phrase.
Yow who speak not, keep foot out of mouth.
nate
Mary Malmros
> bdubya wrote:
>
>>On 27 Mar 2005 09:23:24 -0800, "yunlong"
>><thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Last Friday, after I bombed down the Ridge Run, Heavenly, a
>>>ski patroller caught up with me when I was to make a transit
>>>to the Powder Bowl, wanted to have a "chat" with me.
>>>
>>>"You are going too fast," he said.
>>>
>>>Too fast on Ridge Run? Ridge Run is THE "Broadway" of
>>>Heavenly, and is a wide and mild blue run, I frowned and
>>>didn't answer him.
>>
>>Bad analogy; the REAL "Broadway" is both wide and mild, but
>>driving it at high speed would be grossly irresponsible
>>because it's usually a TRAFFIC JAM.
>>
>>Wait, maybe that's a good analogy after all....but I digress.
>>You had a good question:
>>
>><big snip>
>>
>>>Where did the spirit of skiing go?
>>
>>The spirit of skiing remains;
>
>
> Not what I found among those pedantic comments and stale bickertrips
> received on this subject.
In other words, you're right and everybody else is wrong. Okay. Feel
free to continue reading the letters on the inside of your skull and
licking the spots on the wall for inspiration, but when you venture into
a public space, guess what, you're going to have to make accomodations
for others' reality. Don't want to do that? Then stay home and hide
under the bed.
--
Mary Malmros mal...@bcn.net
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.
Mary Malmros
Yeah. What brand of skis does the stork bring with the baby skier?
Mary Malmros
[snip]
I see a picture of two people cross-country skiing, which is not exactly
what klaus was talking about. I strongly suspect that you _haven't_
"been there, done that".
Mary Malmros
I see a black bear minding its own business.
Mary Malmros
> In article <4249E0...@sbseiber.com>, Sam Seiber says...
>
>>Sam "f*&k Vail Resorts" Seiber
>
>
> Now, now, Vail RULES. I was just talking to a tech support guy in Seattle.
> 'Said he hasn't skied at all this season, but when he was in Colorado, he liked
> Vail. I briefly explained the snow between Oootah and 'rado and well, it really
> didn't matter. He spent his days in the Back Bowels and there was really no
> convincing him otherwise. Oh, his Oootah experience consisted of Park City. No
> wonder...
Never been to Utah, but I've been to Vail, and on my recent trip to CO I
got to go to A Basin with my brother. Ye gods, what fun. The best
freeskiing day I've had in some time. Add A Basin to my list of places
I'd go to before Vail even if Vail was givin' it away.
Bryan
"VtSkier" <VtS...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3at0g1F...@individual.net...
> Bryan wrote:
>> I wonder if most of the injuries occur on the blue runs when you break it
>> down to percentages.
> It's probably true (though I don't have figures) that most
> injuries AND COLLISIONS occur on blue runs because there
> are more skiers on blue runs. The fact that the skiers are
> of lower skill levels may also have something to do with it.
>
> VtSkier
Of course, but I was wondering about percentages as opposed to raw numbers.
It would be interesting to know how it breaks down between more skilled
skiers on more advanced terrain and everybody on the more intermediate
terrain.
J. Urrrk
"snoig" <sn...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> "yunlong" <thedreamof...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Clue me in then.
> >
> Why they even classify most of that part of the mountain as double
diamond.
>
> Or Beaver Creek, home to many World Cup and other Olympic caliber
racing.
>
http://beavercreek.snow.com/BCbase/wrap/theme0/images/map.bop.race.jpg
> Since they don't have the difficulty designation on that map,
here's one for
> comparison:
> http://beavercreek.snow.com/map.zoom.asp?map=talonschallenge
> Looks like all diamond and double diamond trails once again.
>
You have to go ski the first face on this course to appreciate it.
For one, it's iced as hard as boilerplate. For two, it's convex.
For three, it's "Ohmigod!" steep. So when you venture across it
and put one, two, and three together, you get a serious pucker
factor.
Mr. Flat Boarding with be a crumpled heap of kung poo if he
tried his "technique" on that run.
I rather look forward to it.
J. Urrrk, Sadist.
evome...@mailinator.com
is on a black run that is watered and frozen solid before the race.
MoonMan
> You are demonstrably wrong as for example the run Hahnenkamm downhill
> is on a black run that is watered and frozen solid before the race.
And remember that's a European black, ie the equivilant of a merkan double
black.
--
Chris *<:-)
Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!
yunlong
> under the bed.
Yup, I rest my case, bitch.
IS
Mary Malmros
Even better! Calling a woman who disagrees with you "bitch" makes you
even righter.
So, since you said "yup", we can assume that you agree that if you don't
want to make accomodations for others when in the public, you'll just
have to stay out of public spaces? Like, off the ski slopes?
yunlong
> yunlong wrote:
> > Mary Malmros wrote:
> >>yunlong wrote:
> >>>bdubya wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 27 Mar 2005 09:23:24 -0800, "yunlong"
> >>>><thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Last Friday, after I bombed down the Ridge Run, Heavenly,
> >>>>> a ski patroller caught up with me when I was to make a
> >>>>> transit to the Powder Bowl, wanted to have a "chat" with
> >>>>> me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"You are going too fast," he said.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Too fast on Ridge Run? Ridge Run is THE "Broadway" of
> >>>>>Heavenly, and is a wide and mild blue run, I frowned and
> >>>>>didn't answer him.
> >>>>
> >>>>Bad analogy; the REAL "Broadway" is both wide and mild,
> >>>> but driving it at high speed would be grossly
> >>>> irresponsible because it's usually a TRAFFIC JAM.
> >>>>
> >>>>Wait, maybe that's a good analogy after all....but I
> >>>>
> >>>><big snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Where did the spirit of skiing go?
> >>>>
> >>>>The spirit of skiing remains;
> >>>
> >>>Not what I found among those pedantic comments and stale
> >>> bickertrips received on this subject.
> >>
> >>In other words, you're right and everybody else is wrong. Okay.
> >> Feel free to continue reading the letters on the inside of
> >> your skull and licking the spots on the wall for
> >> inspiration, but when you venture into a public space,
> >> guess what, you're going to have to make accomodations for
> >> others' reality. Don't want to do that? Then stay home
> >> and hide under the bed.
> > Yup, I rest my case, bitch.
>
> Even better! Calling a woman who disagrees with you "bitch"
> makes you even righter.
>
> So, since you said "yup", we can assume that you agree that if
> you don't want to make accomodations for others when in the
> public, you'll just have to stay out of public spaces? Like,
> off the ski slopes?
"Yup, I rest my case, bitch."
IS