 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
edit - Stupid machine keeps adding posts when I edit them . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
david@mediacopy, I'm the same and I wish that simple reasonable logic was followed by a few more people...
I dont exchange bad jokes and smiley faces in the apres zone but dont feel the need to go there and tell them to make their jokes better..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
skimottaret, All very odd !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
david@mediacopy, And the result is someone like WTFH feels that he is being persecuted and not welcome when he is one of the "good guys" who is genuine about learning and wanting to ski better....
These arguements that technical talk doesnt belong here is driving away quite a few people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
skimottaret, is it that many who really complain about unnecessarily over-complicated discussion? I think it's just the same few people. I understand where they're coming from - either it's always been easy and natural to them (they've skied since childhood and skied lots) or they just want and will it to be simple (they want there to be a quick fix - and haven't yet learnt that in most cases, there just isn't one). Adult learners and improvers with psychol hang-ups like fear, poor fitness, only average coordination or body awareness, ingrained bad habits holding them back may need more thinking and feeling relative to watching and doing to improve. How much thinking and discussing depends on how their minds work.
As I've expressed numerous times this is a public board - as long as we stick to admin's rules and don't break any laws we can post what we like. We can break the unwritten rules or etiquette for fun or adventure but if we're rude we can expect like even if we just know we know better, if we don't like we can always ignore and instead post our alternative viewpoint on the subject, rather than criticising the post. Also safer in view of the fact that this forum isn't largely inhabited by stupid spotty yoofs but by many people of considerable substance. Which in a long winded roundabout beating the cr*p outta all sides of the bush and slightly tangential kinda way brings me to your point about predefining threads - from a distance imho that one on ILE didn't work too badly in spite of being ever so slightly besieged. Simple explanations can be asked for nicely and may even be given  and I don't see why threads can't develope naturally with those wanting a simple explanation of a potentially complicated concept just asking politely. What detracts is the inappropriate criticism of the posts on the thread. Of course there's no actual guarantee that anyone will be bothered to answer but that's down to the warmth, helpfulness, charity or otherwise of sH, and generally it wins through. And if anyone wants something more simple but more substantive they can always start another thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| These arguements that technical talk doesnt belong here is driving away quite a few people. |
It certainly stops me reading them - and I like technical posts. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what drives people away is some of these witch hunts that people will just not let go...we have probably had the best part of 3 days all going down the same route about a perceived slight and things should have died down ages ago only to be resurrected.......to what end.....???
It has been borderline bullying at times, IMV and is making certain people look stupid going on and on and on about it.
Can we move on now..? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| ... The language used to teach the group was clear and simple by all 3 instructors yet when I was talking with the shadowing instructors we Naturally drifted into ... and used a fair amount of more technical terms to get our points across to each other... |
Which is of course exactly what technical terms are for, whether or not on a public board! They are shorthand to avoid lots of unwieldy words and most I've seen on this site are in both wide use and acceptance. Occasionally I've seen dogma here but only occasionally. I'd want sH who don't understand the terms and concepts to feel comfortable about asking and hopefully someone will explain briefly or say where to look (a quick search of the site is always worth doing), rather than saying "it can't be that complicated/it isn't that complicated, so you must stop making it complicated". Actually, in practice it can be that complicated. Otherwise all we'd each need to be world cup racers would be fitness and experience.
Good to meet you properly too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
slikedges, I really don't want to belabour this but as I have been known to complain (about many things... ) and have since childhood I just want my stance & plea to be quite clear (I mean, skied since childhood, not complained although I probably have done that too) and have to include myself in the set of SHs that you are unhappy with...
IMHO I think one should, in all aspects of life, except where you deliberately want to be exclusive avoid unnecessarily complicated discussions. If a word isn't adding something to your argument - don't use it. Likewise, one should avoid terms that are not generally agreed upon, ambiguous or that you've just made up on the spot.
Comprehendisilitive? (Oh, sorry, i guess i just made that one up it means, "How could you possibly not agree that this is entirely reasonable & and if you don't, I'd like to point out that your great-great-grand-aunt Militude reminded me of a baboon". Efficient, eh?)
Check out skimottarets, tremendous thread on defining some of the things we talk about. It's excellent.
JT, seconded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
skimottaret,
I like that thread...and I think it will help. I hope to contribute, even if just to put an uneducated spin on things. Never had lesson so a lot of terms can get buried in a more modern take on things. To cross ref them, if applicable would be good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Murdoch, I assure you "unhappy with" is putting it much too strongly - more idle observation. Actually when people criticise over-complexicationism within threads I just ignore their pleas and carry on as I was, paying scant heed to any confounusing distress which may result  . Put simply, it don't really bother me. However it bothers others and therefore ends up disturbing the flow and productivity of a perfectly good technically useful thread which I may be learning from and that's mildly bothersome (but still only mildly - after all we are dealing with something that is just a rather enjoyable diversion to most on here).
Now I totally agree that one should avoid unnecessarily complicating things (I have to put things simply to people every day, sometimes very simply...  ) but I'd suggest that with your life-long experience and naturally strong fundamentals you have probably never needed to do any more than tinker with your skiing. To those of us who only learnt at an advanced age and then spent decades assiduously ironing in bad habits it doesn't come naturally - far from it, and we need to be focussed and think and understand, have concepts encapsulated by inscrutable terms, watch and control stiffly every bit that tries to go native and practise drills etc. Maybe only in a forlorn attempt to achieve half your competence, but it's what we have to do, it's all we have, and I know you for one wouldn't begrudge us this. There are some who may be great watchers and doers with above average coordination and body awareness - JT by rep you may be one of these - who also learn without requiring technical analysis, instruction and feedback but sadly few can claim to be like that. So David, when we descend as you see it, into the slowly rotating black hole of meaningless navel gazing terminology, please gaze instead to your lucky stars and move on, you lucky sod! 
ps you can take the wee wee if you like, we don't mind that, just remember we won't stop doing it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
That David Murdoch, he's got real bouncebackability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
slikedges, ah, you are too kind.
I have to work very hard on my skiing. Or it slips away, furtively into the night, only returning reluctantly with much screaming and yelling. Which is a tremendous excuse to go skiing! You have to practice don't you?
I do think it's simple though remember the Japanese skiing robot?
If he/she/it can ski with no brain, imagine what we massively superior humans...
Hold on! Wait a minute! That's it! Our over-developed fore brains are getting in the way! More Mutzig over here please, yes the VERY large ones... 
Have a good weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
ok
I'll post this here..might be relevant, might not, but there you go.
I've skied quite a few weeks now and when I first got the chance to go, couldn't entertain lessons as it was too expensive for me. But I was lucky in that I had like-minded people in the same boat so we tried to work out what was needed from our POV. Now, I do think this cost me in terms of development somehow and it was only after about 5 seasons in, that I got to like what I was doing (sometimes) and have a rather nifty photo of that period which I still admire today.....  how sad is that..? Upto that point I pretty well bombed everything I could as turning wasn't that great...
My next wake-up point was hooking up, or rather my group evolving into pretty much what it is today, and we discovered deep snow. So that was it, into it every chance we got..even when it really was a pile of poo to try and ski so no time for any maintenance on piste as we always wanted to be over there doing other stuff.
I am sure there is a trade-off between what I should be able to do and what I can do, and lessons may have been able to bridge that, but at a cost, in terms of experience and confidence in other areas. I may be tidier here and there but I wouldn't have been able to do what we have gotten upto due to not having enough time etc to do it. And sometimes, there just is no alternative to that. Many a very good piste skier has come unstuck being out of their comfort-zone in certain situations as they haven't been there enough... they don't know that they can hold an edge at 45 degrees...( not saying that 45 degrees is any great shakes but the type of snow could make it hellish..) .. they don't know whether they can get the skis round and stop a pretty hazardous fall and all sorts of other stuff....... and fear can strike down a lot of technique, I'd say.
So, it has been a roller-coaster of choices and you make them and are left with what you have got. I think my way has been ok... I can look at places and think, yeah, I can get there whereas I used to dream about that.
I am no great shakes as a skier, I can be pretty crap but I can be safe. I'll beat myself up if it isn't working and can get as intense about it as anyone but by and large it is a hobby so I am just out to enjoy it while I can.
It is a trade-off of time spent which ever way you get your kicks. I have no time for gates...as it bores me silly, ditto practising on dry and snowdomes. I am not saying these are not worthwhile..I can see some people have improved enormously using them ..but I kind of think that the ski will turn if you put it in place so if you can watch what a good skier is doing and can visualise that, then why shouldn't you nick that idea....
I'd love to be better and also think I'll fit in time for a lesson but then I am concerned with what I will miss so that isn't likely to happen anytime soon... witht her best will in the world... 
It is just the way things go and I guess I can live with it. Each to their own and live and let live which is what this thread will come round to, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Megamum, requests for clarification are always welcome.
Sniping from the sidelines whilst proclaiming that you could have made it at home easier with a small aubergine, isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
veeeight, hear hear! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
JT, Interesting to understand where you are coming from. You sound as though you have a huge amount of skiing under your belt, having been able to get seasons under your belt and getting out whenever possible. With all your hours you had the time to be able to work out for yourself what works for you and that is one way of learning. Couldn't agree more about skiing what you enjoy and i share your dislike of dry slopes and gates but I have started to go to the plastic slope and view it like going to the gym. In the same spirit of understanding here is my background so you can see where i'm coming from.
I too am self taught and got a couple weeks skiing in every year for the last 17 years (and when no kiddy quite a few sneaky weekends). Started skiing at 28 and for the first couple years just followed around my business partner who was a superb skiier and naturally gifted athlete, getting tips as we went along. I used to hate people talking endlessly about skiing in the bars and it grated on me just like listening to bad golfers who talk about minute changes in their swing and clubs etc., you would think they were golfing gods but were atcually 28 handicappers.
Like you in some way I much preferred the "just shut and ski" school of learning. But i got stuck at a plateu and about 5 years ago and frustrated with a lack of progress, started reading books about skiing and kept telling myself i was going to get a lesson on the next holiday, but never pulled the trigger until my wife booked me up with a teacher she had for ski school.
He was a true mountain man, relaxed and within himself and had a very balanced, analogy based way of answering my how to ski questions. He could demonstrate good and bad habits perfectly showing me what i was doing and how i should correct it. I really got it and that prompted me to take a single private lesson each year until last year. my skiing had improved quite a bit and the stuff i had read coupled with the explanations the instructors gave me it all started to make sense. Last year i bought an apartment and i thought wouldnt it be great in a few years time to retire and be an instructor working in the mountains. Knowing nothing about what you needed to do i booked up a course and found myself for the first time in a ski school group. I didnt get a lot of the terminology used but the rest of the group did being mainly young ex club racers and life long ski school addicts. I passed and am actually enjoying the instructing i do. But have found at each training junction how little i actually know and how much better the good skiers are. In order for me to get better at teaching i feel it is real important to know as much as i can about all aspects of sking, including detailed theory, racing and the teaching styles and techniques of other nations so i can distill my explanations to be as thought provoking and memorable and my first instructor. Talking about detailed stuff here helps me do that without being an anal pub bore in the "real world"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
veeeight,
And you're pretty good at sniping yourself. You are the one that kept this going when it could have died...yet no, up you pop again with a little acidic comment or an attack when you percieve you have been slighted.
You really should grow up as others have adpoted a more concillatory tone of late, and accept there are other views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skimottaret,
yes, I can relate to that.
I can get very frustrated at times but that is what makes us come back ...
FWIW, I think I can pull my golf swing apart abit better now that I think I know what I am supposed to do....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys , have spent a lot of time lurking in BzK and sometimes get the eyes glazing over. As someone who prefers skiing explained to him simply I do get put off from time to time. I have now realized that my view of keep the jargon out is quite a selfish one as quite a few instructors here also have a need to talk shop on a different level. A good example of this is skimottaret's post above regarding talking to shadowing instructors during a lesson.
Like professional people anywhere they are going to leave the enthusiastic amateurs behind but do not mean to belittle them. My suggestion is to split BzK into two sub forums, keep one very close to the way BzK is now where amateurs and instructors can discuss but make the effort to keep it simple.
The new forum I would limit to instructors only so they can discuss issues that affect them on a more in depth level. The ability to post on this sub forum would be by invitation only, subject to a check that you hold a relevant Ski professional qualification, from the bottom to the top of the pyramid.
I understand that this will cause some more work regarding organisation but as this is for instructors only then perhaps one of the instructors should volunteer to be the Mod. I have no idea though how much this would add to snowheads overall costs though .
Anyone wishing to post has to email the mod a copy of their certificate. I would imagine any fakes would be outed very quickly once they start posting. I have seen this system in place on other sites but I would suggest that the instructor zone be kept open for everyone to read so that if required people can refer to it from the public zone.
Finally think that skimotterets thread on definitions is one of the best ideas in a while.
Sorry for the long post hope it may be of some use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Gilberts Fridge, This strikes me as being a more sophisticated gloss on skimottaret's suggestion at the very top of this thread. As already noted, that seemed an excellent idea to me. It would avoid recreational, simple-minded skiers like me straying into a technical argument by mistake. The non-techie thread could remain completely open so that any teachers with a desire and/or a bent for teaching 'one piece heel-pushers' could contribute if they wished to do so; and where their contributions would continue to be appreciated.
I'm not sure that the complicated moderating which you suggest is absolutely necessary. Won't people soon get the idea which thread is which, if they are properly labelled? And if anyone strays, they can be guided in the right direction.
skimottaret, your long post about your skiing background, especially the last bit, has very graphically demonstrated (sniping aside, which I agree is regrettable when taken to extremes - though the forum seems to be stuffed with people who criticise others for the cut of their cloth) what has gone wrong here and how it could be rectified by implementation of your/Gilberts Fridge's suggestion. It will be interesting to see how many people might agree with this, and who they are. I can't remember now the ins and outs of the 'applying race techniques to recreational skiing' thread, but I guess there could be some people who don't see a clear-cut distinction being possible. (I readily admit I don't know enough about skiing to be sure, but would just like to think that the two aspects could indeed be distinguished, as now suggested.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Hurtle, I don't agree I'm afraid. There are many recreational skiers here who would wish to participate in the technical discussions, and besides which, what is technical. Fastman's thread on ILE is certainly technical, as are many others. I think this has mainly happened since the thread which ended up in an argument about physics. Well - I don't do physics (I never did it at school), and although I understand the basic bits necessary to skiing I found the argument a bit tedious and anyway totally incomprehensible! However (apart from one slightly sarcastic post), I just didn't bother to read it.
Snowheads are at all different levels of skiing. Some are very good, some are beginners. Some technical things cannot be explained in two sentences, some really need to be demonstrated. I think it's fine the way it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
easiski, Ho hum. I'm not really in a position to argue with that. Oh well. I think I shall probably stay right out of BZK in the future. That may be no bad thing. I've already managed to kick my addiction to quite a few other areas of this site. Who knows, maybe I will soon be able to kick the snowHead habit altogether, and get some of my life back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
since the thread which ended up in an argument about physics
|
I can take some of the credit (blame) for that one, in my attempt to get people thinking about "building pressure in the fall line" (as opposed to applying pressure, pushing etc.) my heat-of-the-moment defensiveness led to some interesting Newton denial moments and making a hash of schoolboy physics!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
For what its worth, I don't see the need for a separate thread - I've never had a problem with things as they are now and I am a novice - one of those that ought to have a problem with a technical thread if a problem actually existed. I don't think it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Gilberts Fridge, Good post and well thought out. FYI there is another ski forum, US based, called epic which has a larger base of contributors and more instructors. They have split their technical forum into two strands, one on "how to ski" and the other on "how skiing works" as per below...
Ski Instruction & Coaching
General questions about your skiing, tactics, helpful tips go here. Video of your skiing for personal insight, & general feedback in recreational terms.
Ski Technique & Analysis
In-depth discussion about ski technique with a highly technical bent. Specific skills or movements, teaching systems, organizations, debates. Video for detailed and technical analysis, evaluation, and prescription for modifications go here.
I didnt suggest making this split as i dont feel we have that many highly technical or analytical threads and perhaps just a "health warning" is all that is required to stop people interupting with the "keep it simple please" message.
I think having a members only instructors area would be a mistake as it would be against the ethos of snowheads. I for one have learned a great deal from people commenting on threads, whatever their background and the diversity is a good thing.
You did get me thinking though and rather than having a private instructors forum we could implement what EPIC do (which i think is useful is to label instructors and coaches (who volunteer to be labeled as such) so that people talking on forums understand who is giving advice. Using easiskis post above rather than "dare to dive" under her name it would say "instructor" and if you click on the instructor tag takes you to page outlining that persons background where they teach, their specialties, what qualifications and experience they have etc. You could argue that our community is small and people soon figure it out for themselves, but why not make it easier adn clearer....
But his might not work over on this side of the pond with our great tradition of reservedness though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
skimottaret, I think you are spot on regarding the danger to the ethos of snowheads. Having been reading for about a year I still consider myself a newbie but very much like the atmosphere of the site. I certainly take more than I contribute at the moment.
One of the reasons I suggested the invitation only forum was a comment by easiski, when she said she had difficulty persuading other instructors to come on board snowheads. I feel that a dedicated forum in addition to other benefits may get more instructors joining who will then explore other areas of the site benefiting us all.
I do see though that some people might feel excluded and think your suggestion of a title for the professionals linking to a small Biog could be the way to go.
One thing we all need to be aware of is that this is Admins site and as such he has to be happy with how it evolves
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Unsurprisingly, as a non-instructor who gets great value out of detailed technical discussions, I have to disagree with Gilberts Fridge's suggestion, certainly as currently constituted. Some of us do find it very useful working through the details, as it clarifies what it is we're trying to do with our skis/bodies. Discussions like that are also the first step on a possible path to getting instructing/coaching qualifications - working out that kind of stuff, having to consider challenges to concepts you may have only half-thought through, working out alternative ways of explaining your point, or realising you're talking complete garbage, are all things I think you need to work out you're comfortable with if you're going to embark on that kind of path. But then as a scientist I would say that, wouldn't I? (OK, that's probably rather idealistic - what you probably really need to do is learn unquestioningly the rubrics of the scheme you're working through and get comfortable with parrotting it back ). As far as I'm concerned, disagreements about substance are desirable, as it's only by defending your position that you really test how well founded it is and how well you understand that foundation. It's lengthy disagreements about the format/nature/conduct of the disagreement that completely pi$$ses me off, and is a complete waste of time (and that's why I've posted much less in here recently).
I think the solution is very much along the lines of what skimottaret suggested in his OP; make it clear right up front what is the nature of the discussion the OP desires (not sure that need to be in the title, but should be in the OP), and that posters exercise some self-discipline and attempt to stick to that. I think it's highly desirable to have anyone free to contribute to any thread, but that does require that self-discipline. If it's too technical/simplistic, then start another thread and make a post linking to it, maybe with a single comment that you disagree with the nature of the discussion and any of like mind can join the new thread. Maybe it's worth having a sticky "read this/etiquette" post at the top of the forum to explain how people are expected to behave.
skimottaret, as you say, links with that level of detail may not work. For example, krunchie63 is clearly a high level instructor, but deliberately wants to keep anonymity to allow him free rein to say whatever he likes, without having to toe any professional/political/party line. elbrus is clearly not what he says he is, and so we have to assume has a similar agenda. easiski is in the enviable position of only being able to be fired by herself, and doesn't need to maintain any particular corporate profile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
easiski, what someone sees when they look at you side on . Less literally, and more helpfully, in non-one-(wo)man-bands it's the image a company wishes to project to the public (but then I'm sure you knew that).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN,
I think that between yourself and skimottaret, you are coming up with a good solution as an alternative to my suggestion. Coupled with the tittle suggestion already mentiond, your etiquette sticky with "the start another thread" comment would certainly be a less complex way forward.
easiski, Understand the instructors reluctance regarding payment and time , this is your living after all. I certainly do not work for nothing as I frequentley have to explain to my emloyer these days.
I do feel that there is a solution and hopefully it will come from this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't see the need for any kind of split. Imho this should be an informal place where all are welcome. I suspect few of the instructors would view a split as an advantage so long as no-one's criticising them for talking shop when they want. Anyone registered can pipe up and ask a question and whether within a designated thread or board or whether on any open thread or board it's still down to the instructors if they want to answer or not. The only advantage I can see is that instructors can talk about stuff without the risk of an unqualified member interrupting the discussion for clarification, or to criticise, and I don't think anyone minds the former, just the latter. In fact as someone above alluded to, having to explain what you think in simple terms can help one to crystallise or understand a thought or idea. Finally there are those who don't have instructor qualifications who nevertheless have enough technical knowledge (eg of physics or of racing (lots of racers have no qualifications)) to contribute usefully and distinguishing between categories of posters may then becomes spurious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| Unsurprisingly, as a non-instructor who gets great value out of detailed technical discussions, I have to disagree with Gilberts Fridge's suggestion, certainly as currently constituted. Some of us do find it very useful working through the details, as it clarifies what it is we're trying to do with our skis/bodies. |
Ditto....
..besides I know instructors who know less than I do (well according to my instructors who are their trainers).... they are baby instructors but still....
I also know a couple of non-instructors who know a fair bit...and are interested...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gilberts Fridge's suggestion of another forum that's inviation only might be a bit too restrictive. Though I can see the benefit of a seperate forum for instructors. So anyone who's tempting to "dumb down" the discussion would be (politely, I hope) reminded they're in the "pro" section and, well, tread lightly.
An even simpler approach would be to preface the thread title with "Instructor Only:". But perhaps that's too much for the reserveness of our (pro and non-pro) participants?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
just wont accept that it has a place when talking about how skiing works...
skis better than I do 
I find this astonishing! If we didn't it would be a sad day for skiing!!!
