Yes, Bob is a fantastic writer. I agree he gives a good and useful description of what a skier feels. But someone has said about skiing that "perception is not reality". Bob's accelerating self as frame of reference would not produce a real force (centrifugal) to balance a real force (centripetal) in the earth frame of reference. Let's not forget that motion is relative to a frame of reference but force is not. It doesn't matter what frame of reference you choose, the net force on an object is always the same. There is no real centrifugal force to balance centripetal force. It is a convenient concept in some situations, but should always be used with the understanding that it is an artificial construct. Grab a text book on physics. Heck, let me google it for you. Here comes the University of Virginia, Physics Department
Bob's writing is good not only because it is vivid, clear, and organized, but also because it is correct.
I understand what you are saying perfectly well. I just don't agree. In some sense all forces are fictitious. They are constructs of a certain phenomenological level of description. They are not there in the fundamental theory (written in terms of path integrals or Lagrangians or whatever craziness the string guys come up with). But when we restrict our discussion to a limited range of conditions (like everyday life), make some approximations, and rearrange the equations in convenient ways, we lump some of the terms into groups that are convenient to call "forces."
On a less metaphysical level, forces are different in different frames. A lot of complicated, real-world computations are done in non-inertial frames.
As I said in the thread Bob linked, numerical weather prediction is done in an Earth-linked frame. And one of the most important forces is Coriolus. It's not fictional -- it causes real hurricanes.
Inertial navigation is done by integrating the forces sensed by accelerometers and the rotations sensed by gyros, and it is usually done in the sensor's own frame. Rigid body motions are much simpler in a body-fixed frame.
Fluid mechanics is usually done in co-moving frames, too.
Another example. If you do satellite trajectories, the most convenient way is to describe the position in terms of orbital elements. Most of them are constant, and one increases linearly, for a spherical Earth. No forces here. When you put in the real world, there are small perturbations that change the orbital elements gradually. So here, the only forces are tidal forces (from a not-perfectly-round Earth) and drag forces from the upper atmosphere.
By the way, I recently read a note that pointed out that forces transform as Christoffel symbols. I haven't had time to work it through, but it makes a lot of sense.