 Poster: A snowHead
|
fatbob, didtn take it as dissing at all. i agree with you that i personally prefer a more direct approach for the insturction i received but as ive have had more week long courses I am backing off that as the direct comments during short hour or two lesson always tended to refer to the same somewhat obvious flaws in my skiing and didnt always provide good ways to fix them
i have to say like you i really really hate getting the "you were awsome dude" type of feedback on my own skiing ..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
skimottaret,
| Quote: |
although you may agree with fatbob, in that you want direct no nonsense feedback your best breakthrough moment came as a direct result of learner guided discovery... if you think back on how the day went when you had your "lightbulb moment" when you finally stopped picking up your inner ski and i stopped answering your questions as to when and why you where doing it, you worked it out yourself and fixed it
|
Er, several points:
a) I wasn't picking it up (much  ) I just wasn't edging it properly and, when told to find my little toe edge, I did. 
b) As evidenced in my last lesson with Rob, I now can't let go of my little toe edge - inner ski now being edged more than outer one.  But I'll be working on that.
c) I don't disagree with you - see my post to GrahamN,
| Quote: |
| Guided discovery is useful in getting the student to focus on that internal feedback, but then does require a level of discussion immediately after the "discovery" phase - to provide the "guided" bit, comparing that personal experience with the wider canon. |
| Quote: |
| Agreed. With all motor skills, you have to develop body awareness: that can be 'guided' up to a point but, eventually, you have to feel it for yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
fatbob,
| Quote: |
just expressing a view that perhaps there is a bit too much nicey nicey in lessons in general.
|
That's what I thought you were saying, and is what I was agreeing with.
| Quote: |
I've seen you both doing yor ritual humiliation warmups with your students so I don't think I'd say there's too much nicey nicey there
|
Co-RRECT! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
little tiger,
If you'd rather stick to command or practice style lessons, then fine, whatever works for you - everyone has their own learning style, and there's nothing wrong with that.
However, the benefit of guided discovery is that it helps skiers to develop their own internal feedback, and enables them to go away and practice what they've learnt in a lesson. Of course if most of your time is spent with an instructor then you can continue to rely on their external feedback and directions.
There is a difference betweem convergent and divergent guided discovery. What you describe is convergent guided discovery - the teacher knows what the answer is, and develops a series of drills and questions to help the learner get there. Divergent discovery is the next level on - the teacher poses the question not necessarily knowing what the answer is, and works with the learner to explore possible solutions - probably more commonly used with higher level skiers. I would take a very strong guess that some of your many instructors have used one or other of these teaching styles with you.
fatbob, I wouldn't say that guided discovery is something that coaches as opposed to instructors use. Both could use a myriad of different teaching styles. My understanding of the difference between a coach and instructor is that a coach will generally work with an athlete over a longer time period, for example as part of a club, and an instructor / teacher may only give them occasional lessons, even if that be on a regular basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
beanie1,
| Quote: |
convergent and divergent guided discovery
|
And people complain about legal jargon!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
beanie1, ..and my original point is that the line between "coach" and instructor has been blurred for marketing purposes in many cases. 2nd -4th week skiers don't need a coach in the traditional sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Butterfly wrote: |
| 1. Group based to offer camaraderie and peer support, but a SMALL group, say 3-5 people with perhaps a day off on the penultimate day if I am there with friends. |
Not sure about other resorts but here you're likely to have around 8 to 12 per class. Simple economics will not allow for smaller group classes. Small group private lesson will allow you to have your ideal numbers of 3 to 5 though. It’s the same with days off. Just book lessons on the days you want them.
| Butterfly wrote: |
2. Duration:
a). Day 1: 1.5-2.0 hours, starting probably about 10/10.30, or whenever the BEST snow conditions are likely to be found for that resort/month. The aim would be to find my ski-legs and get me a confident start without overdoing it while I am still acclimatising.
b). Other days 2x90 mins with a coffee break/tutorial in the middle, with video feedback if possible
|
I think the length of lesson is up to you ?. If you book 2 hours, that's what you get.
Whenever the best snow is around - sorry but that's just the luck of the draw – but we all hope for that ?
| Butterfly wrote: |
3. Content:
Essentially skill based. I lack confidence & fear falling/injury. I have an overactive sense fear - I know that most falls do not result in injury, yet I cannot convince myself of this sufficiently to "let go" & therefore progress IS hampered. I want to develop a very strong skill-base using speeds and terrain on which I am comfortable. Then I want to be taken a little out of comfort zone with the new skills. I don't want to face learning new skills whilst seriously out of comfort zone. At any one time I want to be pushing the envelope with regard to speed OR terrain OR technique - not the whole lot at once.
|
Can I make a suggestion here (as you can tell, I'm not on commission for our school).
Don't take any more lessons until you are happy with the level you are at. To explain. Many fears are based on seeming to go too fast, too steep, etc. Why not, maybe on your next holiday, just ski around with your friends and have a blast within your comfort zone. You'll find that you "can" do it. Within a lesson/class environment there is always pressure on the instructor to progress from one stage to the next. But, it seems in your case, you may be better off not trying to progress but just to consolidate..
You sound to me like someone who has a definite sense of where they feel comfortable and are happy to ski on certain slopes at certain speeds. There is nothing wrong with this. Go for it. Skiing is meant to be fun.
| Butterfly wrote: |
4. Attitude of instructor:
I need you to act as if you understand my fears even if you don't and that you are honestly keen for me to make progress. I need you to quickly show me that I can trust you such that I know if you ask me to do something you honestly believe that I can do it (me, not the "average" person). That way I will be encouraged to try with a certain degree of confidence.
|
I think that all instructors do appreciate the concerns of students.
Every ski instructor can bounce down off piste, through the bumps, down any piste of any grade at a mad speed, but we don’t when taking a class.
I think that sometimes there is a problem with language and this may lead to some problems. But everyone who has been skiing has seen 1st timers being slowing taken down nursery slopes. The instructor “could” take them down a black run, but they don’t as they understand that the skill level of the client is not up to it and so they choose an appropriate area for the practice. We really do try and choose the best terrain for each class but sometime this may seem slightly too much for some members of the class.
| Butterfly wrote: |
5. Practice time
If I am with friends who I trust - fine. Otherwise I want someone to ski with to practise what has been taught - in my ideal world I'd like my instructor to suggest ski-buddies who might work well together. Two people will encourage each other. If I have nobody to be with I may be too fearful to do solo practice (that has happened). I suppose I am worrying I will come to grief with nobody around to help.
|
A ski buddy or a form of (sorry for the jargon) Reciprocal Practice is an excellent idea.
With a ski buddy, why not just try and choose a slope that you “know” is within your comfort zone or (better) maybe even a little easy for you. Then you find that skiing reverts to being fun.
For reciprocal practice you could ask you mate to ski down a little and ask them to watch you as you ski down. They could tell you if you’re still doing this or that. You then ski and watch them coming down. It’s good fun. The important thing about this form of practice is that it should be a simple Yes/No answer not instruction.
So that answer to your question “ I am throwing my hips out at the start of the turn” should be either Yes or No, not tell my how to correct it. That’s for your instructor to do.
Always remember, it’s meant to be fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've quite enjoyed group lessons so far. Budget has never stretched to private lessons as yet - but I would quite like to try at some point. I know that I could get a couple of hours of private for the price of a group, but in the last two years I've preferred to use the lesson time as a "playgroup" for me, leaving my OH to go off and have fun on pistes I don't want to go on, and for him to scout out suitable reds/blacks. I'm not really confident enough to ski on my own for long, although I've done a few runs to get to/from places.
I want:
1. Duration/timing.
Definitely morning, so that I can have the afternoon free to ski with others, consolidate what I've learned, or have a soak in the jacuzzi if it's all gone horribly wrong. I don't want the stress of needing to be back at a particular location for the afternoon slot, and mid morning/lunchtime splits the day, preventing exploring (unless the lessons are only for some of the week). I wouldn't want lessons all day, as I find I need time for my brain to take in what I've been taught, and maybe have a play at some of the drills to see if I can reproduce the "correct" feeling of alignment. I also want time to go off and have fun, without having to worry about keeping up with a group. I can also have a go at dealing with my more stupid fears (lifts, edges, narrower pistes) which I don't want to waste an instructor's time with, especially in a group situation. These are best dealt with at my own pace, with my OH around to give me a gentle kick up the behind where needed. 3 hours for a group lesson seems about right, especially as I am sending my OH off to explore during this time.
2. Content.
A mixture of exploring the domaine and progressing in what pistes I can get down safely and working on easier terrain doing drills that improve my skills for the more challenging pistes. I will quite happily spend ages doing drills on a blue if the instructor explains what you're actually trying to do, rather than showing and leaving you to guess. It would also be better, if correction is being given, for the exercise to be repeated straight away so that you can try and implement the correction while it is fresh in your mind. Stopping points should be planned accordingly. Unless there is no terrain choice, it would be better not to introduce a new skill/exercise on the last pitch before a lift - that way those who've found it difficult/not done it quite right can try again with it fresh in their mind.
3. Organisation.
Groups have the advantage that they are less intense, so you have time to rest (mentally as well as physically) while others are taking their turns. Large groups make the waiting around too long (and it would be difficult to sort out appropriate levels) so around 4 people should be enough to give sufficient recovery time. For me, being in a group means that I have more incentive not to be "wet" about stupid fears, as I would be holding up other people who have paid for the instructor's time and I will just get on with it. An outside stimulus seems to be my most effective way of breaking though a fear. I was stuck in a "can't go faster than walking speed" rut in my week of summer skiing until a thunderstorm came along, and my fear of the lightening outweighed my fear of speed. Going faster didn't kill me, so I realised I could do it, and got out of the rut quicker than any instructor could have made me. I now like going fast, with the proviso of being a control freak and wanting to be able to stop instantly if I need to.
Group selection could do with being based on mentality as well as skill. On the usual ESF sorting hat pistes (wide steepish blue), I am in my comfort zone so can flatter myself enough to get put in the "faster" group in a level. This then puts me with the gung ho men (usually) who want to go fast and everywhere without caring about getting it right, looking more elegant, and feeling more effective and in control. This group then gets to try moguls, without any of us having the necessary basic skills (neat, controlled short radius turns exactly where they need to be). The gung ho lot love the "oops, fallen over again" while I end up with total sense of humour failure over not being able turn without falling and struggling to get up after because the moguls are in the way. Just a quick question about how you feel about doing exercises on easy pistes versus going everywhere you can would probably make that decision much easier.
4. Teaching style.
If the skill is new, the instructor needs to teach. A verbal explanation, followed by a clear demonstration, with constructive criticism afterwards for each exercise. Ideally correction should be positive ("weight more forward" rather than "don't lean back") as studies have shown that if you focus negatively on something, you tend to end up doing exactly that. How many times have people seen a rock on the piste, thought "must avoid the rock" and ended up right on top of it! The instructor should ideally be French or English or a true native speaker of one of those languages as I tend to need verbal cues to translate visual information into a physical skill.
Overall I think that the instructor's job is to put me in a position where I can feel that and how my body position is wrong, and teach me how to correct. The best way to do that is to correct what is wrong and praise what is right, so I can learn the feel of the correct position, and what I did to correct wrong positions when under the guidance of the instructor. Chances are most of the mistakes I make in lessons will be the ones I am most prone to making, so learning to correct those myself will help when skiing without an instructor telling me what 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.
|
Everyone wants to enjoy their lessons. This is tied in with what they want from them and also with having fun.
What my beginner clients want from their lessons is very clearly to tick off skills and get up the ability level. They don't care how I get them there as long as I do.
The intermediates I get to teach seem to want a golden tip or trick to improve their skiing. Quite often this is actually possible, because there's often a fundamental body management or steering flaw that's easily correctable during the session. However often it won't stick unless they really understand/can feel what they're doing wrong and iron the right thing in. Of course they're skiing better at the end of the session and are pleased.
My kids want to have fun on their lessons. Maybe they'd like to improve a bit but largely enjoyment for them is having fun. So first and foremost that's what I want for them too. As long as this isn't compromised I also want their skiing to be varied and at least a little challenging. Hence on holiday I make sure they get an instructor who is good with kids and technically competent off piste as well as in gates. I make sure he/she knows what they have done before, and I'm not fussed by drills but it's understood that their instructor will ski them everywhere that's safe and appropriate to do so incld off piste, bumps and some gates. In the UK they get regular coaching mostly under the auspices of race clubs. It is largely skills based and often drill focussed but made as much fun as poss. Recently they've been getting a consistent coach who's enthusiastic, knowledgeable and skilled and who is already beginning to produce improvements - and who's a sH!
I want to enjoy my learning sessions too. I enjoy them most when I feel they have been useful. This means I've improved or I've seen/done/learnt something that I know will help me to improve. It's usual to have fun doing them but really not the point of the exercise.
I have the occasional off piste ski lesson. During these I want to be challenged a bit and have a model of skiing to follow for that particular pitch and snow condition. I hope to take away from the lesson a bit more knowledge and experience in dealing with the specific conditions I have skied, and will try to make sure that the lesson has a good chance of achieving this.
I have more coaching. This is with a very few individuals who I've skied with both in dome and on mountain, on piste and off. They range from highly qualified race coach to very senior instructor and each is a quite different yet excellent teacher. The main difference with lessons is that each has helped me with my skiing over a period of a few years now, so has gotten to know my strengths as well as the weaknesses that hold me back as well as I do. All are able and willing to be quite frank with me, and I count them as friends. The coaching has slowly but inexorably literally transformed my skiing. Sometimes it's instruction and quite didactic. Sometimes it's facilitation of self-coaching and internal feedback, and very "inner skiing". With the coaching I don't hope to take anything away each time as such, though I might well do. I know that the range and depth of my skiing is improving year on year, so that I simply trust those who coach me and the path they guide me down. I take both more and less responsibility for my skiing development. More when it comes to developing the individual technical changes required but less in the actual path that my development takes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wayne wrote: |
I think that all instructors do appreciate the concerns of students.
Every ski instructor can bounce down off piste, through the bumps, down any piste of any grade at a mad speed, but we don’t when taking a class.
I think that sometimes there is a problem with language and this may lead to some problems. But everyone who has been skiing has seen 1st timers being slowing taken down nursery slopes. The instructor “could” take them down a black run, but they don’t as they understand that the skill level of the client is not up to it and so they choose an appropriate area for the practice. We really do try and choose the best terrain for each class but sometime this may seem slightly too much for some members of the class.
|
Ummm no many do not.... the inability to understand that a very small pitch change can feel like a cliff is quite common. The "it is a green run" is no excuse - for some people that green run is the equivalent of skiing a very gnarly off-piste run... I've known people told by the instructor that they are the worst student ever and will never learn to ski... this is not understanding the students concern (she is still mortified by this remark and will never ski again - nor will she take her family) I've personally been on the end of some pretty poor efforts due solely to refusal to acknowledge the students view point - and an insistence that the run is not that steep/difficult.
beanie1, none of my instructors bother getting their knickers in a knot about it... while the (mostly PSIA) "guest centred" "guided discovery" ones I know all make a terrible hash of teaching anything... Funnily enough I was taught primarily by being taught to use feel for skis and snow as my substitute for my missing nervous system function... ie by building an internal feedback system to replace the one I do not have. Not one of my instructors felt the need to play the silly guessing games I've seen played under the guise of "guided discovery" While the theory may be sound I've never seen decent teachers need to weigh themselves down with the dogma and I've seen an awful lot of poor stuff thrown around by those who do... Don't get me wrong - one of my good friends in my second course was a specialist in learning and learning styles etc. as is another close friend, but they don't need to play these games either. (And I've used the theory from one to drag a chronic failing student from fail to top of class so I have spent time talking to them about this stuff)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| It's a wonder that any group lessons work well! |
I think that most work quite well or not too badly because most are beginner/early intermediate lessons. Most at that level want the same result if not the same teaching style or being possessed of the same learning style. As the level increases I think the disparities between the students increase to a point where only the most skilled and experienced can deliver a great lesson. Hence the development by some well known characters of a system or doctrine that can be applied to everyone and that anyone should ostensibly benefit from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| little tiger wrote: |
This seems very popular with ski instructors who "swallow pearls of wisdom" from some godlike person... they cannot connect the pieces they hold as they do not understand them - but believe these gems to be unequivocally true because... umm they have no idea why... just they MUST be... |
I believe one famously arrogant poster on here is a great example of this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| slikedges wrote: |
I have more coaching. This is with a very few individuals who I've skied with both in dome and on mountain, on piste and off. They range from highly qualified race coach to very senior instructor and each is a quite different yet excellent teacher. The main difference with lessons is that each has helped me with my skiing over a period of a few years now, so has gotten to know my strengths as well as the weaknesses that hold me back as well as I do. All are able and willing to be quite frank with me, and I count them as friends. The coaching has slowly but inexorably literally transformed my skiing. Sometimes it's instruction and quite didactic. Sometimes it's facilitation of self-coaching and internal feedback, and very "inner skiing". With the coaching I don't hope to take anything away each time as such, though I might well do. I know that the range and depth of my skiing is improving year on year, so that I simply trust those who coach me and the path they guide me down. I take both more and less responsibility for my skiing development. More when it comes to developing the individual technical changes required but less in the actual path that my development takes. |
That is probably closer to my regular instructors - until fairly recently I've had a few very regular instructors. They all knew each other and communicated regarding my instruction when needed. I was always improving, and needed to trust these people implicitly.(when you do not know what your body is doing this becomes very necessary to learning how to move) These relationships are nothing like a one hour ski lesson or even a week of lessons. These coaches would spend 30 days in a row skiing with me. They see me when I'm tired, physically unwell, or just plain having a bad day.They also see me make the breakthroughs and watched me go from struggling to ski a blue run to skiing the mountain with them. I'm always there and they are always there. There is no agenda as such - they are teaching me to ski. If today gives us breakable crust - we learn to ski breakable crust. You cannot get close to this relationship in the odd course or a few lessons. I spent 50-70 days a season, season after season with these guys. I even skied overseas with some. I did summer training under email supervision with others.
My side of the deal was I did all that summer training, and all the suggested practice before and after lessons, and the stretches, and the hydrotherapy pool sessions, etc etc.
This is the ultimate in ski instruction. Usually only achieved by season long programs such as race programs. I envy Fastmans racers - they got to train every day in this manner. This is heaven for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| little tiger wrote: |
| Wayne wrote: |
I think that all instructors do appreciate the concerns of students.
|
Ummm no many do not....
... some pretty poor efforts due solely to refusal to acknowledge the students view point ...
|
I once saw an instructor who was an ex-racer take a small child down a skier cross course. From the chairlift I could see that this wasn't suitable terrain for the child's level and commented to my partner, just as the child promptly wiped out.
On a separate note, refusal to acknowledge the student's viewpoint is a common problem mentioned at all levels, but I think the problem becomes far greater as the level of skiing increases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| little tiger wrote: |
... These coaches would spend 30 days in a row skiing with me. They see me when I'm tired, physically unwell, or just plain having a bad day.They also see me make the breakthroughs and watched me go from struggling to ski a blue run to skiing the mountain with them. I'm always there and they are always there. There is no agenda as such - they are teaching me to ski. If today gives us breakable crust - we learn to ski breakable crust. You cannot get close to this relationship in the odd course or a few lessons. I spent 50-70 days a season, season after season with these guys. I even skied overseas with some. I did summer training under email supervision with others.
|
You've been very fortunate. I haven't skied with my coaches anything like as much as you have with yours!  But yes it is that sort of relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I never know what I want to get out of a lesson, except for being able to ski better once I've had it. For me what I think works best is for an instructor to watch me ski and then say, 'right, I think we will work on x,y,z,a,b,c and probably as its me, d,e,f,g,h.....etc ' Seriously I know it works if just a couple of things are focussed on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| 2nd -4th week skiers don't need a coach in the traditional sense. |
I'd disagree. If they really want to improve their skiing, finding and working with a coach over a period will likely get them faster results than 'spot' lessons with random Instructors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
I want to improve my level to what it was before the lessons - however, I also want lots of fun and havent been let down yet !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
david@mediacopy, snap
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I believe that I was very fortunate on my first week skiing that I got a first class instructor. I didn't realise it at the time because I had no experience, but he was good because he made the whole learning process fun but he was also very good at putting across technical tips to improve technique. It was Passo Tonale in Italy and I remember his name was Claude.
I look back on that week, which started my love affair with skiing, with great admiration for that instructor who put me on the right course for future learning. I realised how good he was when I had a few bad experiences over the next couple of years, with very variable instructors.
My next great teaching experience was with the SCGB on a pre season instruction course to Verbier with some Aviemore ski instructors. It worked so well that week because they had everyone in a group of very similar abilities and the instruction and drills were spot on for our group and led to the greatest leap in my skiing ability. I came away from that week skiing far better than I thought I was capable of, it was just such a great week.
I didn't have any more lessons till last season, when I did the Off Piste Clinic at the EOSB last year and that didn't disappoint. Excellent instruction from Newgen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| david@mediacopy wrote: |
| fatbob wrote: |
| 2nd -4th week skiers don't need a coach in the traditional sense. |
I'd disagree. If they really want to improve their skiing, finding and working with a coach over a period will likely get them faster results than 'spot' lessons with random Instructors. |
I agree that continuity is very desirable but the way I interpret traditional coaching is thet they are already working with athletes which have most of the basics locked down, in whatever sport and are looking at unpicking bad habits or improving in areas of weakness while still enabling day to day performance.
I'd bet that complete beginners who go through Scott & Rob's programme will progress far faster than averaage beginners and maybe this gives lie to my comment but the reality is that most people pick up lessons at whatever different resort they go to each year so continuity remains a pipedream for many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, It doesn't have to be a pipe dream. I expect that the issue is more that beginner skiers don't appreciate that coaches are out there and available to them.
Scott and Robs program is a great example of the results skiers can achieve in a coaching environment, and there are qualified Coaches at most local dry/indoor slopes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, david@mediacopy, sadly, we have had very little take up of our Learn to ski package. could just be early days but most total beginners who have inquired just want a single session taster type before going away on hols and dont see the need for coaching with the same instructors.... 
on the plus side i can honestly say all of the regular clients on our coaching clinics have made good progress and some had long standing ingrained problems with their skiing that have been ironed out or at least reduced quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, That's the rub, if you learn something correctly in the first place it saves having to fix it later.
Though to 1st time skiers, they probably don't realise just how addictive skiing is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
david@mediacopy, that was what one instructor(not mine) commented after seeing me ski... I had lots of stuff I still did not/could not do... but having learnt from day 1 with instruction all through I was also minus all the regular bad habits. He felt this was far easier to progress forwards with... NO bad stuff to unlearn - just new items to add and things to refine...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
