 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| 4) to have a ding-dong about whether it is strictly correct to use the phrase 'apply pressure' strikes me as being so up itself as to have completely disappeared into a region where light no longer shines. |
May I take the title of "persecuted pedant" then? I've no problem with terms like "pressure" and "force" being used loosely, but when someone implies they are using the terms scientifically, yet makes a bit of a hash of it, I'm afraid I can't help myself! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
laundryman, my sentiments exactly
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
GrahamN, for 2) I would add constantly changing edge angles.... any "static" removes the "dynamic" from the turn...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
laundryman,
| Quote: |
I've no problem with terms like "pressure" and "force" being used loosely, but when someone implies they are using the terms scientifically, yet makes a bit of a hash of it, I'm afraid I can't help myself!
|
Totally fair. Not even pedantic. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
I was merely saying that 'race techniques' - not my phrase, by the way - do not apply or need to apply to my own skiing.
|
Hi, Hurtle. Like rob@rar said, don't let this thread throw you. It's not "race techniques" that are the origin of the highly technical part of this discussion. It's more just people who enjoy delving deep into the physics of skiing in general, coming together to hash out some issues you really don't even need to see or consider at this juncture in your skiing.
I'd venture to say (from reading your prior posts) that at this point, you just want to learn and work on some simple to understand things that will help you to experience your next "light bulb" moment,,, that next small leap in your ability to perform and have fun on your skis. That is completely possible without having to subject yourself to discussions like these. The skills you need to learn right now to pursue your current skiing goals are not complicated/difficult to understand or learn. When you see discussions go the way these did, unless you have a particular interest, best just tune them out and wait to direct your focus on a later topic that more addresses your current needs. They will come.
As to "race techniques":
The foundation of race technique consists of developing the same skills that produce any accomplished skier, whether they care to use those skills to race or not. Every racer at one time was at the same place on the development ladder you are right now, and had to bit by bit develop the foundation skills needed to keep ascending that ladder and become a more competent racer. You may never in the future desire to step boot in a race course, yet if you DO desire to take your skiing abilities to higher levels, you will inevitably need to progressively develop the same foundation skills those young racers do. The journey to high level skiing follows the same general foot path, regardless of the travelers reasons for going there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
FastMan, Well argued!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, No to be harsh but I kinda agree with V8 in that if you dont like all the tech talk just switch pages... But perhaps a better solution, if you are really concerned about clear non technical descriptions about skiing would be to start your own thread on the subject with all tech talk being barred.
I for one would be interested to hear succinct explanations that dont use technical jargon that could be used to explain skiing to anyone. A very tall order but a goal worth pursuing IMO. I can barely speak English correctly let alone write well so would struggle. I for one find Fastmans posts very compact and understandable yet he uses technical terms. Easiski hits home for me when explaining drills (i know you hate the term) in simple language as she must do day in day out when speaking to clients. horses for courses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skimottaret, I have been trying to convince FastMan, for years that he should write a book  He writes very well about a subject that is often difficult to follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting the defensiveness that manifests iteslf here - some are good at dishing out criticism, but are much less good at taking it.
I have said before, on another thread, that I find FastMan's and easiski's styles exceptionally lucid: I am merely repeating that view here, in the light of other, less lucid, more jargon-loaded and more obsessional contributions. That does not mean that I cannot pick up the odd nugget of useful information from other contributors, I can and do. I am not a beginner, and find it patronising to be told to turn away from whole threads just because: either, I level some, in my view justified, criticism at some of the obsessional nonsense to be found in them; or, I state that some of the descriptions of manoeuvres lead me to suppose that some - just some - of those manoeuvres are not for me anyway.
On the matter of the use of technical terms, of course some are necessary, though they can and should in the interests of clarity for those who want to learn - at whatever level - be kept to a minimum. Would I have learned how to play the piano any better if my teachers had obsessed about the difference between force and pressure being applied to the keys? I think not. And of course the motor functions involved in playing some musical instruments are at least as complex, if not more so, than those involved in skiing.
The furious arguments that break out amongst those that occupy the high ground reflect - often through confusion as to the precise meaning of the technical terms that you bandy about - that you often misunderstand or just fail to understand one another. It also reflects a clear desire by some people invariably to be in the right. Please don't blame or patronise others for being puzzled and occasionally irritated, and for daring to express those feelings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Hurtle, I don't feel I've been defensive until now - despite your continual pops at me in this thread, and I'm really trying to avoid getting pi$$ed off with you now.
But do you not think it's useful to understand that there are only three fundamentally different ways the forces arise that change the direction/speed of your body/skis? And "There's nothing you can do about 1, 2 is a result of your trajectory over the mountain, but 3 is a result of stuff you can do." is about as non-jargon and concise as I think it's possible to get (OK I could have used "path" rather than "trajectory", but both are perfectly good English words). Also understanding that the forces arising from motion within your body (extension/flexion etc.) requires a later payback is I think a really important concept - not one I'd really thought about until writing that.
Understanding that pressure is what controls how deeply a ski digs into snow, and how you can change it, indicates why you'd want to ski more two-footed and with flatter skis in soft snow (equalising the pressure over each ski, and so minimising it), and ski more one-footed and on edge when the surface gets harder (more localised downward pressure and so better grip). Don't you think that's useful?
I don't think you can get much more basic and fundamental than that. If you want jargon how about discussing angulation and inclination instead? Or prefer to argue about which preposition it's best not to finish this sentence with? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
GrahamN,
OK, one by one (and I'm not getting at you in particular, btw, why do you think I am?):
| Quote: |
there are only three fundamentally different ways of getting your body/skis to change direction/speed
|
Not useful, particularly since I suspect that not everybody agrees with you.
| Quote: |
There's nothing you can do about 1, 2 is a result of your trajectory over the mountain, but 3 is a result of stuff you can do
|
Fairly useful if true. Not sure it's true, or at least universally accepted, viz the huge argy-bargy about ankle-rolling on another thread.
| Quote: |
I could have used "path" rather than "trajectory", but both are perfectly good English words
|
Bloody patronising.
| Quote: |
forces arising from motion within your body (extension/flexion etc.) requires a later payback
|
Not useful, at least not without knowing what the phrase 'requires a later payback' means. I have had extension and flexion, of the whole or parts of my body, and their consequences, explained to me clearly in the past. It can be done.
| Quote: |
Understanding that pressure is what controls how deeply a ski digs into snow, and how you can change it |
Useful. How one moves one's weight around, when, where and why, would be a good way of approaching this whole area of expertise but not, for the average consumer, the difference between pressure and force.
| Quote: |
indicates why you'd want to ski more two-footed and with flatter skis in soft snow (equalising the pressure over each ski, and so minimising it), and ski more one-footed and on edge when the surface gets harder (more localised downward pressure and so better grip).
|
This is simple, clearly expressed and of relevance to the 'general' skier, unlike the general thrust of this thread. I have no problem with it, any more than I have a problem with your discussing, with more nuances of expression, the extremely nuanced changes that are required for turning at speed on an icy slalom course. If that's what you want to do, fine, though it interests me that Martin Bell , a former racer at high level, inclines towards the easiski school of thought and expression ie to simplicity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, not sure if you were lumping me into the "defensive" or "high ground" group but i was serious that i think it would be a great thread to talk about high level skiing only using clear, simple language. I suggested you as you obviously have a desire to keep things understandable and I seem to recall that you are a writer/author and would be well placed to moderate such a thread. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
skimottaret,
Neither! (I'm trying hard not to be backed into the corner of saying who I consider the worst culprit to be! )
I wouldn't presume to start a thread on 'high level skiing' as I'm not a high level skier, though am not a complete duffer on the snow. In fairness, high level skiing isn't what I thought this thread was supposed to be about, which is why I felt justified in joining it. By contrast, there's an extremely high-powered scientific argument going on in Apres, on which I wouldn't dream of intruding!
I'm not a writer. My background is in law, where I had to earn my living on the one hand understanding activities outside my own specialism, and on the other, explaining legal concepts to laymen. It can be done - to keep the clients, it had to be done - even though, like most lawyers, I ain't no genius!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
easiski,
| Quote: |
angulation in simple terms is when there's an angle between your legs and your upper body - inclination is when the whole body inclines into the turn. The exercise being done by a lot of the race clubs at the moment 'inclination/angluation' is when you start the turn on the inside edge of the inside ski, thus 'inclining' into the turn, and then apply angulation half way round the corner and thus switch to the outside ski. To do this one you first have to be able to turn on the inside edge of the inside ski .... back to traverse one legged skiing .....
|
Clear as crystal.
QED
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Hurtle, sorry you are right about this thread not being about "high level" skiing but we are talking about race techniques which assumes a bit of knowledge and reasonable "general" level of skiing.
Most lawyers are good wordsmiths perhaps that was my confusion on your background. I used to be an engineer and i like technical illustrations and explanations but find the tech talk tough going as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Hurtle, can i join your Easiski Fan Club?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
You can never please all of the people all of the time. Tell you what, I'll start a simple thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Teacher: "Now class I want you to force your outside ski at the beginning of the turn."
Student1: "You want me to force my ski round...ok!"
Teacher: "No, no, don't force it, apply a force to it."
Student1: "In which direction should I apply the force?"
Student2: "He means pressure your outside ski at the beginning of the turn."
Student1: "Well, why didn't he say so?"
I understand enough about physics to know it's force that accelerates any mass. I also know enough about English to know that I put and absorb pressure on my skis. The vernacular of the ski instructor isn't going to satisfy the necessarily precise language of a physicist, but for skiers to then be punctilious with terms and concepts, and at best get it only part right, is certain to irritate the pundits but worse still is likely to confuse the uninitiated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'm not getting at you in particular, btw, why do you think I am? |
, Well,
| Hurtle wrote: |
| Your post also reminds me of why I abandoned a music form and analysis course a few years ago......in danger of being eroded by the purely academic exercise. |
is a bit of a giveaway, along with
| Quote: |
| more obsessional contributions |
and
| Quote: |
| obsessed about the difference between force and pressure |
when I have to admit freely that my repeated attempts to get over the point that they are fundamentally different (even if sometimes used interchangably in non-technical parlance) are clearly obsessional  .
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
there are only three fundamentally different ways of getting your body/skis to change direction/speed
|
Not useful, particularly since I suspect that not everybody agrees with you.
|
It's a shame that you didn't quote the amended (and I hope clarified) version of that, corrected 15 minutes before you posted your reply.
| Quote: |
| viz the huge argy-bargy about ankle-rolling on another thread. |
Unfortunately that shows I've not got over to you that this is all about something way more fundamental than specific moves: it's nothing to do with the minutiae of ankle-rolls, arm-positions, etc, but the more fundamental principles of mechanics (as also agreed by Masque) on which all those specific moves are based.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
forces arising from motion within your body (extension/flexion etc.) requires a later payback
|
Not useful, at least not without knowing what the phrase 'requires a later payback' means. |
Explained in the post to which you took so much exception. If you increase pressure by extending the legs against the snow, you'll have to later flex them again (as you cannot carry on extending ad infinitum), which then reduces pressure (or completely removes it altogether, as in a jump turn). You could also see that as a loan and repayment. In that particular example the benefits are dual: the early extension gets you moving into the turn earlier, and the flexion reduces the later pressure buildup and lessens the chance of the ski breaking away (which is almost word for word what I said earlier). This is also not an explanation I've made up myself, but was gone through (in almost exactly those words) on a race training course (to tie this somewhat tenuously to the thread topic). Alternatively, think about how you want to move through a mogul field, and you'll soon work out what your legs ought to be doing. You may not be able to work out exactly the details of how to achieve that, but you'll get the basic plan.
| Quote: |
| not, for the average consumer, the difference between pressure and force. |
Sorry, but that is actually pretty key. They are not jargon words, but fundamental concepts. They are related, as explained above, by the area over which the force is exerted, and do different things. If you can't change one, you may still be able to change the other by changing the area in question. Two illustrations of the difference were in my reply to Brian, and another two in that next bit you quoted. But if you can't grasp the difference, and relationship between the two, then you can't develop your own examples.
And that last phrase is the crux of this whole thing, and why I'm banging on about it. If you understand the fundamentals, then you can work out for yourself how to cope with some set of conditions your instructor has not told you about. Otherwise you have to learn thousands of different techniques, one (or more) for each individual set of conditions you encounter. It's also the fundamental philoshophy of the way Phil Smith teaches (although maybe taken to an even more fundamental level) - he can't tell you how you should approach the snow ten feet in front of you because he's not skied it yet - but he can tell you how to work it out for yourself.
I'm sorry if you felt patronised, but "trajectory" was the nearest to the physicists' jargon you so lambasted that I could find in any of my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN,
| Quote: |
Hurtle wrote:
Your post also reminds me of why I abandoned a music form and analysis course a few years ago......in danger of being eroded by the purely academic exercise.
is a bit of a giveaway,
|
Now that gives away your own defensiveness. It was an extremely good form and analysis course, which I was not criticising, merely describing my own reaction to it.
| Quote: |
that my repeated attempts to get over the point that they are fundamentally different (even if sometimes used interchangably in non-technical parlance) are clearly obsessional
|
But you weren't exactly alone, were you?!
| Quote: |
It's a shame that you didn't quote the amended (and I hope clarified) version of that, corrected 15 minutes before you posted your reply
|
Sorry, I was interrupted in the middle of my reply, so had to 'pause' it and didn't notice your amendment.
I don't think there is much to be served in trying to counter the remainder of your argument. You believe that a full and specialised understanding of the basic mechanics of every move is essential to learning how to ski (ski 'generally') and I don't. You know more about physics than I do (Masque knows everything, so he doesn't count ). You race and I don't. You evidently likes to analyze everything to the very nth degree (that's no criticism, by the way) and I don't - put it down to laziness on my part. Let's just agree to differ and cease 'banging on.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| it interests me that Martin Bell , a former racer at high level, inclines towards the easiski school of thought and expression ie to simplicity. |
That's often because I can't quite understand the more complex schools of thought
Seeing as this thread is delving into concepts like force and pressure, I can highly recommend this background reading: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=49671 ( with some very good "physics of skiing" contributions by PhysicsMan and Bob Barnes, as usual).
All I can say is, you do tend to start to believe in centrifugal force when it's trying to pull you into the nets at the exit of the Steilhang at Kitzbuhel!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Martin Bell, Completely off-topic, but could I have met you once, at the house - in SW15 - of some people called Richard and Shelagh Harrison? It was either you or your brother and it was a helluva long time ago!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
start to believe in centrifugal force
|
You do, if you use the correct frame of reference (a phrase I used earlier in this thread).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe in gravity - doesn't make me a physicist though, or feel to need to start! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Martin Bell wrote: |
Seeing as this thread is delving into concepts like force and pressure, I can highly recommend this background reading: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=49671 ( with some very good "physics of skiing" contributions by PhysicsMan and Bob Barnes, as usual).
All I can say is, you do tend to start to believe in centrifugal force when it's trying to pull you into the nets at the exit of the Steilhang at Kitzbuhel! |
I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with Martin here - if anyone's had the slightest difficulty with the last few pages, under no circumstances visit that thread - or at least nothing beyond the second post (it's all about centrifugal/centripetal forces and different frames of reference, and actually only distantly related to what we were talking about here).
But if anyone's interest is piqued by talk of frames of reference  , that thread indicates why I always use the mountain as the reference frame for concepts (and am rather surprise than Bob Barnes finds another frame useful, although I'd agree it's useful/essential for calculations) - the usual excellent posts from Physicsman though. Apart from anything else, I find it's easier to think of me navigating through the course/around those rocks/trees etc., rather than thinking that the mountain then has to move around me. Anything else brings in all sorts of other complicated non-intuitive stuff (e.g. that thread talks about needing college level physics/maths, and it's still then full of heffalump traps). Martin - I would have though it fairly simple to think "I really don't want to carry on heading towards that netting much longer, and would much prefer to head towards the next gate - so I'd better get my skis pushing me in that direction pretty soon!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Jumping into the fray...
| Quote: |
Quote:
obsessed about the difference between force and pressure
when I have to admit freely that my repeated attempts to get over the point that they are fundamentally different (even if sometimes used interchangably in non-technical parlance) are clearly obsessional .
|
For all your dislike of "jargon", Hurtle, the use of jargon, for those who are familiar with them, saves a lot of time and misunderstanding over such as the difference between force and pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| easiski wrote: |
| The exercise being done by a lot of the race clubs at the moment 'inclination/angluation' is when you start the turn on the inside edge of the inside ski, thus 'inclining' into the turn, |
easiski, question for you. In the above statement, you refer to the little toe edge of the inside ski as the "inside" edge.
Was that what you meant to say? Over here we, as far as I've ever seen, universally refer to the little toe edge of either ski as the outside edge. Is the way you stated it how it's thought of over your way? Do pros in Europe use the turn as the reference, rather than the body?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
FastMan,
| Quote: |
Over here we, as far as I've ever seen, universally refer to the little toe edge of either ski as the outside edge
|
Surely, the inside edge of an inside ski is on the inside? I would be fine with calling it 'the little toe edge' but suddenly introducing the word 'outside' into the turn at that point would seriously confuse me! (I'm European, and am expecting easiski to say that she made no mistake.) That certainly has considerable potential for confusion, particularly for little people, who are taken both to North America and to Europe to ski. Maybe for kids it is indeed best to refer to 'little toe edge'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
slikedges,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| Martin - I would have though it fairly simple to think "I really don't want to carry on heading towards that netting much longer, and would much prefer to head towards the next gate - so I'd better get my skis pushing me in that direction pretty soon!" |
At the rate I think, I'd be dead!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| FastMan wrote: |
easiski, question for you. In the above statement, you refer to the little toe edge of the inside ski as the "inside" edge.
Was that what you meant to say? Over here we, as far as I've ever seen, universally refer to the little toe edge of either ski as the outside edge. Is the way you stated it how it's thought of over your way? Do pros in Europe use the turn as the reference, rather than the body? |
That is interesting and explains some confusion we have encountered. i cant speak for easyski but over here it is the turn as the reference that determines inside or outside edge. That is why i sometimes use uphill / downhill side when speaking which seems more universal, but much to the anoyance of some peeps on .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| But do you not think it's useful to understand that there are only three fundamentally different ways the forces arise that change the direction/speed of your body/skis? And "There's nothing you can do about 1, 2 is a result of your trajectory over the mountain, but 3 is a result of stuff you can do." is about as non-jargon and concise as I think it's possible to get (OK I could have used "path" rather than "trajectory", but both are perfectly good English words). Also understanding that the forces arising from motion within your body (extension/flexion etc.) requires a later payback is I think a really important concept - not one I'd really thought about until writing that. |
As a master of obfuscation even I find that paragraph dense to the point of obsolescence. I've yet to meet and engineer that doesn't limit the use of "trajectory" to a description of movement in 3 planes and "path" to 2. We slide on a variable inclined plane so 'path' (and its synonyms) are technically the better terms to use . . . and a bloody site more comprehensible to those at the receiving end of teaching.
As for "requires a later payback" . . . not only is that an abysmal euphemism but it is also contrary to the idea of action and reaction as it implies that a response is not required immediately to forces applied and received.
People who are attempting to perform outside their abilities (in learning to ski) and in exertion stress are less able to parse complicated or unspecific jargon and this applies at higher levels too unless both the trainer and the trainee have identical vocabularies and grammatical structure. That is statistically zero and only rises to an acceptable level if both are from the same local (let alone country) and have a long mentor/pupil relationship. It is essential in any sport to have common terms of reference and for trainers to keep to them outside the intimate relationship of long-term one-on-one coaching.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Sun 16-09-07 9:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Masque wrote: |
| I've yet to meet and engineer that doesn't limit the use of "trajectory" to a description of movement in 3 planes and "path" to 2. |
In physics, I'd say that usage is more to do with which plane (2d), rather than the number of dimensions. Thus an artlllery shell has a trajectory in a vertical plane. Trajectory often implies the absence of changing forces, as in the shell example. Paths are usually in the horizontal plane, or at least a plane with a horizontal component. I'd say a ski jumper follows a trajectory but a slalom skier follows a path.
In mathematics, "path" is used for any number of dimensions, as in path (or line) integration.
Sorry - that's very far off topic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Blimey, what hope do we lesser mortals have, when the physicists cannot themselves agree on their terminology? I wasn't too far off the mark when I said
| Quote: |
The furious arguments that break out amongst those that occupy the high ground reflect - often through confusion as to the precise meaning of the technical terms that you bandy about - that you often misunderstand or just fail to understand one another.
|
See also the Snowplough thread - we can't even agree on which edge is the inside and which the outside!
Masque is so on the button when he says
| Quote: |
both the trainer and the trainee [must] have identical vocabularies and grammatical structure. |
It is a prime duty of any trainer, or of anyone who presumes to give advice at all, to ensure that the person on the receiving end can understand precisely what is being said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
See also the Snowplough thread
|
Oh, sorry, it's this thread, I now can't even distinguish between threads, let alone terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
