What is the Ideal Amount of Snow?

Wow.  Never knew the NYskiblog attracted trolls.  

PowderAssassin wrote

Long time lurker. That absurd post by Snoloco made me sign up an account. lol

Prolly should have stayed a lurker...

I thought there was a forum rule that we could only turn one thread at a time into a shit show?  Moderator!!

PowderAssassin wrote

Should I quote myself? lol

No.  Allow me to...

PowderAssassin wrote

You can only ski pow on a 30 degree slope? haha...man oh man. I've skied 2 feet on blue trails plenty of time. That's just a complete lack of skill. Too much powder is dangerous....hahahaha.... at a resort none the less.....spoken like a true gaper. ;) Seriously....get a pair of wide skis and learn to ski. Please.

I saw your comment from another thread about people being "friendly" on the internet.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the words you wrote don't come across as very friendly.

I'm not really following your line of bullshit.  You cry about the shitty snow on the EC, but then talk of skiing " 2 feet on blue trails plenty of time."  Perhaps, in this dream, you actually knew what you were talking about?  as for right now, you don't have clue.

The fact is... you reek like a troll, and you obviously don't know your head from your ass.   Quite honestly, you sound a bit like a child.  Grow up or GFYS.

From what I gathered online their record snowfall at Snow Ridge is 374".  And from my understanding most of their snow comes early from lake effect before the lakes freeze up, even though Ontario hardly freezes completely.    At least that diagram shows that the eastern portion of the lake does freeze.  Does anyone who goes to Snow Ridge know how their lake effect usually is late season?  Last year was my first year there and I went twice both good powder days.  One was opening day and easily 4 feet of snow and the other maybe a few weeks later with another fresh foot.  By the time late season rolled around I was too focused up north.  If that theory is true and they record most of their snowfall in the first few months then wouldn't the snowfall in Dec and Jan be comparable to what out west gets?  

This is a welcome distraction from office work.  Unfortunately, it won't last.  Mikey's MO is to come in to a forum, say really stupid things (although I honestly think he believes them) and then play the martyr and dramatically exit when he gets justifiably skewered for being a dumbass, know-nothing, fatso with a big mouth and no clue.  Then everyone can go back to talking about snow tires, web cams and cell phones and all will be right in Harvey World.

Noah John wrote

This is a welcome distraction from office work.

I agree.  Stupidity at this level is very entertaining.

Glade Runner wrote

  Does anyone who goes to Snow Ridge know how their lake effect usually is late season?  

Late season  the sun comes into play with lake effect during the day. It does happen, but not as frequently and is usually at night

PowderAssassin wrote

I think I heard explosives going off last time I was at jay peak.

The only explosives Jay Peak will ever be using are ones to break up all the boilerplate ice that is so hard that the tiller on the groomer jams when it hits it.

Scrape scrape scrape.

PowderAssassin wrote

Tree skiing is dangerous. You want to take that risk, that's up to you. There's a reason they say ski with a partner. It's amazing how people try to downplay risk because they want to partake in an activity. It's way more dangerous than just skiing down a wide trail and reasonable speed. This is common sense. You fall and you have a greater risk of hitting a tree than on a regular trail especially in the tightly packed east coast trees.

I don't know what the injury rate is groomed vs. tree skiing. But I am very certain that the death rate is almost exclusively in the domain of groomed trails. I can't remember the last time I heard about someone dying due to a tree skiing accident. But skiing on trails? Particularly high speed blue square trails? Every season at least one death, usually a few, from high speed impact with trees. In the woods, you don't ski fast. It isn't hitting a tree that kills you, it is hitting a tree at high speed. I've hit a tree before. I've broken an elbow before. But it is a lot less lethal hitting a tree at a couple MPH vs. a couple dozen MPH.

Tree skiing is dangerous. But at least it is less lethal than grooming skiing.

But if you are afraid of getting hurt, maybe you shouldn't ski at all. 100% of people that don't ski haven't been hurt in a skiing accident. I'd say don't leave your home either but that is the most dangerous place in the world... try not to let fear stop you from enjoying life.

nepa wrote

PowderAssassin wrote

Should I quote myself? lol

No.  Allow me to...

PowderAssassin wrote

You can only ski pow on a 30 degree slope? haha...man oh man. I've skied 2 feet on blue trails plenty of time. That's just a complete lack of skill. Too much powder is dangerous....hahahaha.... at a resort none the less.....spoken like a true gaper. ;) Seriously....get a pair of wide skis and learn to ski. Please.

I saw your comment from another thread about people being "friendly" on the internet.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the words you wrote don't come across as very friendly.

I'm not really following your line of bullshit.  You cry about the shitty snow on the EC, but then talk of skiing " 2 feet on blue trails plenty of time."  Perhaps, in this dream, you actually knew what you were talking about?  as for right now, you don't have clue.

The fact is... you reek like a troll, and you obviously don't know your head from your ass.   Quite honestly, you sound a bit like a child.  Grow up or GFYS.

You're the one calling me names like troll and a child, yet I'm immature? LOL
Every single year you get a few days of deep pow in the ec, including vermont. As I stated 10 times...it's simply a matter of how often. Vermont has some of the best on the ec, except for lake effect areas. Greens are better than berkshires which are better than ct hills. It's all relative. CO blows away vt as does utah, washington, oregon, bc, alberta, alaska, wyoming, montana. Hell crowds alone are way lighter at some of these ski areas. Less crowds, better terrain, more snow. On almost every account they smoke anything on the east coast.


Go ski your super DEEP "boot deep" powder! Make sure you don't get buried!

This is from ski sundown, which has an average snowfall of 60 inches. How often do you get this? That's the real question. The more snow you average, the more often. You could have powder days 1 day every 5 years in Washington DC if they had a hill. LOL

riverc0il wrote

PowderAssassin wrote

Tree skiing is dangerous. You want to take that risk, that's up to you. There's a reason they say ski with a partner. It's amazing how people try to downplay risk because they want to partake in an activity. It's way more dangerous than just skiing down a wide trail and reasonable speed. This is common sense. You fall and you have a greater risk of hitting a tree than on a regular trail especially in the tightly packed east coast trees.

I don't know what the injury rate is groomed vs. tree skiing. But I am very certain that the death rate is almost exclusively in the domain of groomed trails. I can't remember the last time I heard about someone dying due to a tree skiing accident. But skiing on trails? Particularly high speed blue square trails? Every season at least one death, usually a few, from high speed impact with trees. In the woods, you don't ski fast. It isn't hitting a tree that kills you, it is hitting a tree at high speed. I've hit a tree before. I've broken an elbow before. But it is a lot less lethal hitting a tree at a couple MPH vs. a couple dozen MPH.

Tree skiing is dangerous. But at least it is less lethal than grooming skiing.

But if you are afraid of getting hurt, maybe you shouldn't ski at all. 100% of people that don't ski haven't been hurt in a skiing accident. I'd say don't leave your home either but that is the most dangerous place in the world... try not to let fear stop you from enjoying life.

 Deaths are rare, other less severe injuries are more common.
 Netting would prevent most of these deaths. Wider trails are safer if you don't go near the edge. That's where people get messed up. Going at moderate speed and not going near the trees will keep you safe on a normal trail. WAY More people ski groomers than ski woods. This affects statistics.

Of course if you're going 5mph/cross country skiing through the woods, it's not that dangerous, but many don't ski woods like that. I don't really find that fun personally.  Also, forget deaths, how about serious injury? That's WAY more common. You hit a tree at 15mph, you might lose a leg or die if you hit your head. It doesn't take much when a tree is involved with a direct hit. You're not going to be rolling and losing massive amounts of speed before hitting that tree.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22820133/colorado-skiers-die-groomed-blue-runs-after-hitting

Again skiing woods at 5mph vs opening up on a wide open powder bowl is not really the same thing. Also, in deep pow you're not going to slide into trees in the middle of a wide open powder trail unless you're skiing like an absolute lunatic. Skiing really fast is dangerous too.(ask any ortho who works on ski racers! lol) That's why ski patrol says something especially on family trails. Because you could hit someone else as well.

Again safest skiing is on a trail at moderate speed where you can have a fun and keep risk minimal.

riverc0il wrote

Tree skiing is dangerous. But at least it is less lethal than grooming skiing.

But if you are afraid of getting hurt, maybe you shouldn't ski at all. 100% of people that don't ski haven't been hurt in a skiing accident. I'd say don't leave your home either but that is the most dangerous place in the world... try not to let fear stop you from enjoying life.

Total nonsense.
 This is all a bunch of crap. It's like saying you shouldn't ski if you feel the need to wear a helmet or there's no difference in hucking off cliffs and going for a leisurely ski.

You do realize number of deaths for groomers is higher than for people doing extreme big air jumps? Using your idiotic logic, going down a blue groomer is more dangerous than "big air" jumps. SUUUURE.

Tree skiing is way more dangerous if you're going more than a crawl speed through the woods. Common sense. You're surrounded by trees!

RiverCoil...what's your beef? I'm not telling you shouldn't be allowed to ski in the woods! Just the way I know how dangerous the trauma park is, but I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to do that. I believe in freedom of choice, just like wearing a helmet. I'm just stating an obvious thing that tree skiing is more dangerous than skiing on a trail. Of course if you're skiing out of control on a trail going 60mph that changes the equation. lol Normal skiing on a trail is much safer than woods.

PA, you should probably just give it a rest.

First off, read the title of this post.  Is that not the most idiotic question you've ever read?  I think my 4 year old niece comes up with more insightful conversation questions than that.

Second, when, ever, on the history of the internet has anyone said... gee sir, I respect your opinion and I'm going to change my mind because you convinced me otherwise.  I've never skied out West, but OF COURSE it is better.  Anyone who debates that merely needs to look at how many people fly from the east coast to the rockies vs. the number of people who fly from the rockies to the Whites?  Greens?  Adirondacks?  Hills in central and southern NY.  It's almost unheard of unless they had some other motive.  I work with people who take ski trips out West every year.  I don't hear of people from Colorado coming to ski Whiteface.  It's just absurd.  So just get over it.  No ones going to agree with you because it's the internet and they'd rather try to discredit you and argue and feel good that they had a little personal victory.

Third, this forum is a joke.  In consists of mainly nearly retired to retired old geezers who have nothing better to do than worry about money, football, their idiotic bucket lists that no one cares about, beer, and oh yeah, skiing.  Take any one of those things away from them and they are crying like infants wanting their binky.  The other small population is people from the Hinterlands, some Coach dude who's a bit of a meat head I think, a kid who thinks skiing outside of a resort is some kind of illegal and insane activity, and some other younger guy who generally thinks it's cool to put his entire life on some ridiculous blog and hang out here rather than playing candy saga crush while he waits for it to snow so he can teach people how awesome he is at skiing, and then go home and blog about it.  There are a couple other that don't fit those are probably OK but there isn't really diversity to speak of.  I'm pretty sure all the sexist, football watching, beer swilling geezers chased off or offended any women that might have joined.

And lastly, here lives the greatest ski forum troll to ever walk the silky threads of the worldwide web.  You got to see a taste of his insane paranoid ranting and absolute hate filled bile he spews.  And he's got friends here, so watch out!

If I were you, I'd shut my computer, have a beer and never come back to this place.  The slight shred of useful information you might find is not worth all the hate mongering that lies within.

If I'd known it was the way it was, I would have never joined.  But I was 'smoked out' by that clever troll.  So clever that he recognized the exact same screen name I used before when we clashed.

I'm going to go on enjoying being 34 and rid of internet ski forums.  I hope that helps clear some stuff up.

MikeK wrote

PA, you should probably just give it a rest.



Second, when, ever, on the history of the internet has anyone said... gee sir, I respect your opinion and I'm going to change my mind because you convinced me otherwise.  

lol
You're absolutely right. It's just fighting for fighting sake. 2+2=4 could be a 20 page "debate".

He actually thinks we are the same person. Talk about paranoia.

Noah seems so sure of it too. I could probably figure it out if I cared, but not sure how someone else could.

There's some truth in Mike's rant above.

Can the hate in this thread possibly be real or is it just amusement? The people who know each other are friends. How do you hate someone you've never met?  I don't know.  Maybe it's self hatred.

Someone once suggested that I like these occasional flameouts.  Wrong.

Harvey wrote

Noah seems so sure of it too. I could probably figure it out if I cared, but not sure how someone else could.

There's some truth in Mike's rant above.

Can the hate in this thread possibly be real or is it just amusement? The people who know each other are friends. How do you hate someone you've never met?  I don't know.  Maybe it's self hatred.

Someone once suggested that I like these occasional flameouts.  Wrong.

I think that much of the drama is just for amusement.  I do agree with MikeK's rant.  I pretty much knew that you didn't like the occasional flameouts.  They think that you do because you don't do much moderating.  However, other sites that do more moderating have even more flameouts because there is also a conflict between the moderators and the other members.

MikeK wrote

 It consists of mainly nearly retired to retired old geezers who have nothing better to do than worry about money, football, their idiotic bucket lists that no one cares about, beer, and oh yeah, skiing.  Take any one of those things away from them and they are crying like infants wanting their binky.  

I don't know what your beef is with NJ, but I found your previous posts to have some value. Your stereotyping of some of us is not correct, I for one don't drink, don't have a bucket list, and don't watch professional sports and don't worry about money and don't participate in some of the idolizing of certain members - none of us are ski gods. If you want to leave - leave, if you want to stay - stay, however if you want to leave but can't pull yourself away, get help.

Discussion/culture on this site seems to go best when it sticks to ski stoke, and supports ski stoke in a thread. If someone goes against that grain or tries to insert some rational thinking usually a shit show starts. I can say this here because the diarrhea has already hit the reciprocating device.  

I also believe that as much as Harv my not like the discord, he actually likes it when the hits and post numbers run up. It helps with advertisers and lets face it, if there is no flame war going on, particularly in the dry months, there are only a few posts and little activity - look at the history this month. I watch during these droughts and Harv will throw out a post here or there to try to get a discussion started.