On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:53:59 -0500, telenaut <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Fact: A given trail and a given amount of snow will support a given number
>of skiers before it's tracked out.*
>Rhetorical question: Why is it "better" that those skiers be "us"?
>Conclusion: "Better for us" is what's meant, i.e. selfishness.** Pretending
>otherwise is hypocrisy.

>Justin makes a good--poetic even--but ultimately unconvincing case for the
>deservedness of those who have suffered most for their skiing. Personally I
>feel (reductio ad absurdam:) the ones who most deserve freshies are the ones
>who have driven the longest distance to get to them.

I'm not denying hypocrisy ('cuz that would be, like, totally hypocritical),
nor am I denying a dose of healthy dose of selfishness.  I'm only A., saying
it's pretty cheap to find your lines online and B., advocating for a little

None of us "deserve" any of the snow we get any more than anyone else.  

Back-channel me, and I'll send you the coordinates to all of RogerK's secret
stashes, for example -- front-channel? no way, Jose.

By the way, I find it interesting that many/most of the guys who appear*
least likely to need/use beta for BC skiing (versus fossil-fuel to power
their arses to the top of the mtn.) are the most adamantly opposed to


*I could be wrong, but I don't see Tag or Leigh posting about their BC-VT
exploits.  This is only an observation -- not a judgment -- I don't care how
you get your jollies on snow. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit