New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Instructional Approaches

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
There has been a very good, if heated , discussion of instructional approaches in the "go faster" thread. I thought a thread focused solely on instructional schools of thought could be good if it's not too incendiary. My own belief is that the standard US "lesson" approach for many skill sports -- one day lessons taken haphazardly from an "instructor" -- is broken because it does not provide an opportunity for lasting shaping of the student towards better performance. Piano is not taught this way, why should golf, skiing or riding be? Furthermore, good instruction should be heavy on movement and very light on talk. Otherwise, how will the student actually learn the motor skills in question? And good instruction should build enthusiasm, not inhibition. Finally, practical, effective technique must be taught.

I've experienced AASI lessons as a student, in multi-day camp formats primarily, and also lurked on their discussion forum occasionally. My own experience has been that most of the instructors do keep their students riding and keep the talk to a minimum. Further, there don't seem to be many closet sadists in the AASI ranks, at least yet. You know, the ski instructor who has the class stand and listen for 45% of the lesson, then primarily savages several students' skiing without effectively showing how to move from where they are to a more-effective technique? I don't know whether this is in part an age thing (PSIA seems to be older) but the positive nature of AASI instruction that I have observed is a plus. (The inhibited nature of many ski instructor's skiing I think in part results from their having been "punished," rather than positively reinforced, by instructors who were into this during clinicing.) (I also know that PSIA does not officially encourage the stand-around-and-criticize approach, in fact it encourages the opposite -- but I see it happen not infrequently.)

The lesson format that exists in the U.S. for ski and snowboard schools I believe is more the fault of students collectively than any intructional organization. If enough students wanted season-long, effective teaching, they'd get it. AASI is responding to student demand for quick-fixes with the standard lesson format, but that's the market, can't fault them there.

One danger of the "half-day" lesson, though, is that instructors themselves begin to think that this is the main domain of riding. How will an instructor who spends their career teaching solely week-long camps to motivated students look at the world, and ride, after 20 years, versus one who spends the 20 years teaching half-days to 10-day a year riders who will never improve?

Effective technique: as a consumer, I think that both PSIA and AASI teach to their students (not to each other in higher level clinics) a technique aimed at non-fatiguing, relatively "easy" riding or skiing. Take foot drive. As a student, I have several times had it explained to me that a "neutral" technique that lets the board turn for you will allow you to ride big resorts all day without getting killed by fatigue. I think there is a fair bit of truth to this as a practical matter. Whether teaching this as the dominant approach to riding is the best way to go can be open to debate.

Rhetoric in instructional manuals or online forums is another issue. I figure people can say what they want in instructional manuals so long as it results in effective teaching. The danger is that too much rhetoric divorced from real riding ends up taking on a life of its own. The discussion of riding without using your highbacks on the AASI forum, for example...while a good drill, I read some posters there as taking this to be a generally applicable approach to riding. Similarly, there's a lot of focus on avoiding a "flying" rear arm...but virtually every Olympic halfpipe, competitor, say, displayed this while setting up their entry into the pipe.

I have zero knowledge of other nation's snowboard instruction systems. Relative to, say, PGA golf instruction in the U.S., I'd rate AASI instruction quite highly. Keeping people moving and lack of "talk and criticize" can go a long way by themselves. How it stacks up to other systems, areas for improvement, and barriers to changing approach -- who knows? Likewise I have never seen the internal politics at work.

Anyway, I'm interested in other's thoughts. Vlad and Phil, I appreciate the passion for the sport you both so obviously have. Please let's be heavy on smilies.
post #2 of 23
CTK,

This question transcends AASI and snowboarding, and is very applicable to all teaching. It gets discussed on a somewhat regular basis on the instruction forum here on Epic.

I'd suggest you cross post this over there. You'll get a lot more feedback that way.

That said, I agree completely. I've been teaching for a long time, and I worked at Breck for a while in the late 80s. The standard group lesson was 4 hours - 10-12, then 1-3pm. A lot of people would spend at least 2-3 days in the lesson. It was a fantastic format and works great at a destination resort. I brought this concept to my SSDs in the years since then, and got zero response. One issue that would come up would be the need for a lot more instuctors, especially in the suburban day area. Another issue with these small ski areas, is that people are generally only skiing one day, and don't want to "waste" (their opinion) the whole day in a lesson. And although I agree that many people would feel that way, I don't see why it couldn't at least be an option. I bet they'd sell quite a few 4 hour group lessons to the people who ski more than 5 days/yr. In the little suburban resorts, it would go over well with the non-beginner lesson takers.
post #3 of 23
you make a great point-
i am sure there are some excellent aasi instrcutors out there...actually, I know several.
much like psia, however, the experience at one school can vary widely from that of another.
the aasi school at mountain creek in nj is the worst i've seen anywhere, anytime.
in more than 90% of level I lessons, the instructors don't even don snowboards, and therefore don't demo. their pupils rarely move at all. it boils down to a cold, static 1 hour 45 minute demo.
as a result, that mountain is more dangerous than ever.
some of the aasi staff (staff whom i'd hired many years before, when i was still training staff, there, and they taught a very efficient, solid lesson) approached me and asked for advice, as they saw, clearly, that their lessons were going nowhere. the aasi guys scoffed at the idea of demonstrating, claiming that 'most students are auditory learners', and that standing without the board for a 1 hour 45 minute lesson is a great practice.
each time, then, i told the aasi guys not to ask me, then.
after the typical 1 hour 45 minute lsson there, more than 80% of pupils could perform, maybe, a sloppy heelside turn on the flat beginner hill. that's about the best they ever did.
of course, i'm sure there are aasi schools wher ethis sisn't the case, i recall being very impressed with bromley's school, and certainly stowe's, but this approach is bizarre, coming from level II aasi guys.
i will allow that the manuals do not promote much standing boardless and yapping, though.
the approach which assi takes, however, seems to be a reaction to the initial hit they took when they were still calling themselves by their true clours, PSIA-SB.
this concept rubbed most prospective boarders the wrong way, as we boarders, by and large, used to tend toward iconoclastic, free thinking and riding. now the greater majority of boarders are primarily fashion junkies. anyway, in their quest to distance themselves from their highly structured roots, aasi threw the pendulum wildly to the other side, and adopted this 'anything goes' ethic in teaching and riding, which set the groundwork for the burton snowboard coropration to step in and push their own style of teaching which requires, to a great degree, their own trademarked board.
enter the LTR program.
thsi program utilizes a very backward shortcut to turning a board which requires that their boards be used for early progression.
the ethical and educational limitations are a little scary.
again, it's the age of corporate ownership of even the (previously) most free of endeavors.
wake up and smell enron.
post #4 of 23
`
`
`
post #5 of 23
on a slightly different note- there's a thread in the instructional forums about the old 'star skier' program, whereby the public could (for a modest fee) go out with a lev. III (back then we were called "full cert") instructor and be given drills to try, with quick instruction first, and then , whenever the guest liked, they could return and be tested on a series of these drills, and earn pins (bronze, silver, etc.).
were aasi to enact such a concept in park riding (which has very definitive goals...you either make the rail or you don't),
it would be wildly popular, as grommets (these are guests, NOT instructors) would all vie, rabidly, for their pins, it would generate much interest in aasi, and the ensuing pins one might earn as an instructor, and it would bring aasi much revenue.
phil- bring this concept to the aasi table. i think you'd do exceptionally with it.
the moment one grom showed up at his middle or high school wearing a bronze "aasi-star rider" pin, all of his friends and enemies would want them, as well.
please, tout it as your own idea, i have no dog in the aasi pound.
post #6 of 23
great thread, it was definately in the making i.e "go faster" thread

i'm a noob second year instructor, got my level I cert last year from the Rocky Mtn. Division and feel lucky to have had Tony Macri as my examiner. i really learned alot, felt i got my moneys worth and felt better prepared with more tools and look forward to more AASI clinics.

I also think I'm lucky in that my ski/ride school has weekly clinics, at which we discuss our riding progressions, often we discuss teaching progressions or student/group teaching and common problems we encounter with the work. some find it boring, i enjoy it.

my observations from this work include: there are instructors who stick to one approach and don't change much, instructors who adapt and work hard at what they do, and instructors who don't care very much because they just want their season pass.
just like different types of learners, there are different types of instructors for example: talkers (blah blah for most of the lesson), doers (not alot of verbal but alot of "go like this" stuff)

i enjoy group lessons because everyone is different with many dynamics in teaching/learning etc. it makes me practice various methods of teaching to cover the various types of learners.

private lessons i often get people with specific issues and specific improvements they want to make. from someone wanting to be a "euro-carver" to riding moguls switch . some have said "i just want to learn to snowboard in 1 hour"...yup for real

my point and contribution to this thread is everyone lesson is different, every lesson i create a lesson-plan in my head based on the student or group after initial observations. no lesson is static, if it is, then maybe this gig has got you burned out eh.

i feel my training was excellent, and there is something FOR ME to learn almost everytime i teach.

also for us here, the time of year means different types of customers. right now we are in spring break season, so we get alot of texans who ride at most, once per year and tend to push it. during christmas/new year we get alot of returning customers who ride a little more often, with a little more experience.

bottom line: when i see my LTR (never ever ridden a board) students with NO injuries at the days end; controlling their speed down a run without body slams; and having fun.... it makes me feel good about what i'm teaching.

ok my soap boax broke
post #7 of 23

Adaptive Perspective

I am an adaptive instructor at an eastern resort. In preparation for my Level I Adaptive Snowboard exam this past winter, I thought it would be a good idea to take a private riding lesson while at Snowshoe. When I signed up, I explained my goals and needs and requested an instructor with appropriate skills. What I received was a 50 minute lesson with a Level I "kid" who was friendly, but not very experienced. I definitely felt I had wasted $90! (In hindsight, I should have complained to the ski school, but didn't).

I guess I have gotten used to the "adaptive" way of teaching: only half or full-day lessons; several instructors per student (if required); and teaching each student with a keen eye toward their specific abilities, strengths & objectives. Even adaptive students who have the same disability will be very different in what they can do (weak on one side, vision difficulties, cognitive weakness, circulation problems, etc., etc.). We have to constantly "adapt" our teaching to allow our students to learn/improve/have fun in a safe and supportive environment.

Given this background, a "one-size-fits-all" approach to teaching seems very unproductive for both the student and instructor. By constantly reevaluating our teaching on the fly, I believe we will learn more ourselves and provide a better lesson for our students.

I recently heard that my resort is transitioning to a low-cost instructor approach, with little emphasis on certifications or pairing student needs with specific instructor abilities. I'm sure they are not the only resort making this change. It is unfortunate, and short sighted (in my opinion), but there are many corporations taking this low-cost approach. Maybe clients will complain and demand better, maybe a new business of non-resort instructors will crop up to meet teaching needs?
post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by cesonnepe
I am an adaptive instructor at an eastern resort. In preparation for my Level I Adaptive Snowboard exam this past winter, I thought it would be a good idea to take a private riding lesson while at Snowshoe. When I signed up, I explained my goals and needs and requested an instructor with appropriate skills. What I received was a 50 minute lesson with a Level I "kid" who was friendly, but not very experienced. I definitely felt I had wasted $90! (In hindsight, I should have complained to the ski school, but didn't).

I guess I have gotten used to the "adaptive" way of teaching: only half or full-day lessons; several instructors per student (if required); and teaching each student with a keen eye toward their specific abilities, strengths & objectives. Even adaptive students who have the same disability will be very different in what they can do (weak on one side, vision difficulties, cognitive weakness, circulation problems, etc., etc.). We have to constantly "adapt" our teaching to allow our students to learn/improve/have fun in a safe and supportive environment.

Given this background, a "one-size-fits-all" approach to teaching seems very unproductive for both the student and instructor. By constantly reevaluating our teaching on the fly, I believe we will learn more ourselves and provide a better lesson for our students.

I recently heard that my resort is transitioning to a low-cost instructor approach, with little emphasis on certifications or pairing student needs with specific instructor abilities. I'm sure they are not the only resort making this change. It is unfortunate, and short sighted (in my opinion), but there are many corporations taking this low-cost approach. Maybe clients will complain and demand better, maybe a new business of non-resort instructors will crop up to meet teaching needs?

sounds like your resort's being bought by intrawaste.
for the record, both in my past snowboard school at the old great gorge resort, and at my present schools in CZ and CH, the impetus of our snowboard lessons is to have pupils riding and turning in both directions (if not linking turns) in one hour. It's easy enough to do, with the proper iinstructor approach.
post #9 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlad
sounds like your resort's being bought by intrawaste.
for the record, both in my past snowboard school at the old great gorge resort, and at my present schools in CZ and CH, the impetus of our snowboard lessons is to have pupils riding and turning in both directions (if not linking turns) in one hour. It's easy enough to do, with the proper iinstructor approach.
It's interesting that the business models that are rewarded currently by the U.S. stock market are ones that consider some types of on-hill investment, such as effective lessons, basically spent costs as opposed to investments in future skiers and riders. I don't even disagree with Intrawest on this from a business perspective necessarily.

If you look at the vitality of summer camps, though, there is a clear market for effective, targeted instruction, even for stronger riders. It may be diffuse enough, though, that it becomes something primarily addressed by non-resort instructors or specialty "destination" camps in-season, as Cesoneppe suggested, here in the U.S., if people can work around the insurance and liability issues.

Vlad, would you say that good ski and snowboard school instruction is valued more highly by 1) your average resort management, and 2) your average skier or rider, in Europe vs. the U.S.? Is this part of the difference in approach you are referring to?
post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
It's interesting that the business models that are rewarded currently by the U.S. stock market are ones that consider some types of on-hill investment, such as effective lessons, basically spent costs as opposed to investments in future skiers and riders. I don't even disagree with Intrawest on this from a business perspective necessarily.

If you look at the vitality of summer camps, though, there is a clear market for effective, targeted instruction, even for stronger riders. It may be diffuse enough, though, that it becomes something primarily addressed by non-resort instructors or specialty "destination" camps in-season, as Cesoneppe suggested, here in the U.S., if people can work around the insurance and liability issues.

Vlad, would you say that good ski and snowboard school instruction is valued more highly by 1) your average resort management, and 2) your average skier or rider, in Europe vs. the U.S.? Is this part of the difference in approach you are referring to?
that's an interesting query- first, though, let me address the 'summer camp' issue.
I've observed that many 'summer camps', in the snowboard world, anyway, are really simply summertime drop-offs for largely untalented brats whose milf's need a break, and pay handsomely to gte little tommy-grom outta the goddam house for a while, so she doesn't hafta hear his x-box and playstation all summer long while he works on his pallid grommet hue and enjoys online porn.
the majority of these camps are aimed at such nascent trustafari and their parents' plastic.
most of these groms would be far better served by skating their summers away.



now, then: in much of europe (certainly where I've run schools),
mountain management takes less stock in it's schools than do american ski resort management, but only because most euro schools are private entities whom have little, aside from their initial contracts, to do with the resort management.
this double-edged sword is an excellent way for schools to run unfettered by mgt.'s bizarre demands. mgt. gets their cut from each school, and they call it a day. far more is on each school, then, to produce great results, as several are typically competing on one mountain, and believe me, european guests shop around.
my school has wildly successful results, largely because i'm akin to a slave-driveresque, albeit fun-loving psycopath who demands action, action, action from all classes whose instructors wear our colours. any instructors wanna stand there and talk, or demonstrate less than once for every two pupil runs, they're out. plain and simple. no department of labour complaints, no running to HR and filing a grievance. they're gone. and that's how all euro schools which i've onserved are run. this is also why most euro countries consistently turn out superior racers. as far as freestylers, hell- few have ever wasted their time with a lesson, when they started. i had a chat with shaun white regarding this, during the olympic qualifiers this past january.
my euro school is a very in-demand school, to say the least. all euro schools , then, become far more guest-result driven than do our fat, placid american schools.
The average mtn. mgt. corp., in europe, leaves it all on the school to earn their own bread by earning a hot reputation...mtn. management has their contract, already, so what do they care?
guests, of course, value a great school and a great lesson FAR more in europe, because there is healthy competition on each mountain, AND holiday classes go on all day for groups, for weeks on ened, with the same instructor. the bowlers weed themselves out. such is sadly not the case in the states.

night and day difference.

if i've ever come off, as philsthrills has openly opined, 'holier than thou', it's likely because instructors who haven't actually worked at a resort where a dozen or more schools vie for guest traffic have no F&*$ing CLUE what it is to have to turn out superior lessona day in and out, esp. when one considers that the average euro ski school has each group for weeks on end, every day!!!!
when I observe the horrific, fat, slow lessons that lazy, careless, inept american snowboard instructors dole out, I am awestruck and wonder how our skiing public tolerates it. precious few american snowboard instructors would last a day in a european school.

night and day difference, again.
post #11 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlad
...
The average mtn. mgt. corp., in europe, leaves it all on the school to earn their own bread by earning a hot reputation...mtn. management has their contarct, already.
guests, of course, value a great school and a great lesson FAR more in europe, because there is healthy competition on each mountain.

night and day difference.
Have you considered a "partnered" approach with guests whereby they agree to pay you a baseline amount, regardless, and then an extra amount if 1) they meet a stated performance goal, or 2) slack off by, err, skipping a lesson to attend to, err, other interests? Would European guests potentially be amenable to this if not currently offered? I ask because in my day job I've had excellent results and happy clients with a similar approach, but am struck that in most athletic pursuits most people don't want to really commit to improvement in a similar, partnered way.

Certainly it seems like having the ski school function done on a % of revenue basis (I assume) "rent" paid to the resort leaves the school as a whole incented to produce the goods, just wondering how this filters down to the specific guest/instructor relationship. Do happy guests tip well to the instructor, or do you pay performance-linked bonuses to the instructor?

These are very specific questions on delicate subjects -- business model and money -- but definitely appreciate anything you can share.
post #12 of 23
```
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlad
in my own school, instructors get 'almost-free' housing, two free meals a day at a local pub, and lesson-pay. if they go the extra yard, it's o n them to collect.
you see, even the instructors are a more autonomous entity from their school, mere contractors who call most of their own shots.
An instructor (such as myself, in the manner i learned) who actually sets up apres-ski meeting places, takes her/his class to the spa (and has the presence of mind to score her/his self a free membership for bringing guests in), takes the group out to the coolest, least-known dinner venues, then out to the various discos dancing, sets his/her own
chance for greater gratuity. each eruo-country's own winter-holiday
brings a different national presence to the mountain at different times of the season. germans tip well, dutch...not so much. danes tip OK, Swedes tip EXCEPTIONALLY well, and their wimminz sho' nuff is friendly.
instructors set their own bonuses, I see that they earn their stipend and per-lesson pay, and teach well. after that, it's on them. a bad instructor, at the resorts where i work, loses her/himself their pupils immediately, and then I generally comp the\ pupils a few days of teaching, and they can decide to take care of the alternate instructor. the school loes slightly in terms of income/payroll for a couple days, but this scenario rarely presents itself.
spend a season teaching in europe, and you'll have a whole new understanding of what good snowboard teaching is really about.
a veteran american instructor (vail resorts experience) gave me advice last year about going the extra mile for clients; things like having a cell phone handy; hooking dinner reservations for them at a resturant that meets their needs..etc

i found these efforts really paid off well, many returning clients who request me for all day privates, $100 dollar tips. its been sweet and i love seeing clients stoked when i'm prepared.

is this service concept/work ethic unique to euro resort/instructors??
i figured this was common place in our biz in general, or am just a total noob??
post #14 of 23
```
post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlad
trust me- there's a difference between "having a cellphone handy; hooking dinner reservations for them..."
and
actually taking your group TO dinner, after taking your group to the spa, and then taking your group out to discos"
Both are cool, but the latter is not something that happens too regularly here in north america.
Yeah, somehow I think my wife might have a problem with that second approach.
post #16 of 23
```
post #17 of 23
Bring Frisco too and feed her some alka seltzer. Transylvanians behave a lot better with canids present.
post #18 of 23
```
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
Bring Frisco too and feed her some alka seltzer. Transylvanians behave a lot better with canids present.
Rusty, Frisco is highly offended. He's a him, not a her. Granted, he's had his manhood thwacked off with a sharp knife, but he never lost his attitude. Or did you mean to feed the wife some alka seltzer?:
post #20 of 23
Sorry John. Had to guess, either way is still funny. Have you seen the pic of Vlad's "kitty"?
post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
Sorry John. Had to guess, either way is still funny. Have you seen the pic of Vlad's "kitty"?
Yeah, gotta get me one of those. That'd be about the only kind of cat I would let into my house. It'd give Frisco a run for his money!
post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlad View Post
that's an interesting query- first, though, let me address the 'summer camp' issue.
I've observed that many 'summer camps', in the snowboard world, anyway, are really simply summertime drop-offs for largely untalented brats whose milf's need a break, and pay handsomely to gte little tommy-grom outta the goddam house for a while, so she doesn't hafta hear his x-box and playstation all summer long while he works on his pallid grommet hue and enjoys online porn.
the majority of these camps are aimed at such nascent trustafari and their parents' plastic.
most of these groms would be far better served by skating their summers away.



now, then: in much of europe (certainly where I've run schools),
mountain management takes less stock in it's schools than do american ski resort management, but only because most euro schools are private entities whom have little, aside from their initial contracts, to do with the resort management.
this double-edged sword is an excellent way for schools to run unfettered by mgt.'s bizarre demands. mgt. gets their cut from each school, and they call it a day. far more is on each school, then, to produce great results, as several are typically competing on one mountain, and believe me, european guests shop around.
my school has wildly successful results, largely because i'm akin to a slave-driveresque, albeit fun-loving psycopath who demands action, action, action from all classes whose instructors wear our colours. any instructors wanna stand there and talk, or demonstrate less than once for every two pupil runs, they're out. plain and simple. no department of labour complaints, no running to HR and filing a grievance. they're gone. and that's how all euro schools which i've onserved are run. this is also why most euro countries consistently turn out superior racers. as far as freestylers, hell- few have ever wasted their time with a lesson, when they started. i had a chat with shaun white regarding this, during the olympic qualifiers this past january.
my euro school is a very in-demand school, to say the least. all euro schools , then, become far more guest-result driven than do our fat, placid american schools.
The average mtn. mgt. corp., in europe, leaves it all on the school to earn their own bread by earning a hot reputation...mtn. management has their contract, already, so what do they care?
guests, of course, value a great school and a great lesson FAR more in europe, because there is healthy competition on each mountain, AND holiday classes go on all day for groups, for weeks on ened, with the same instructor. the bowlers weed themselves out. such is sadly not the case in the states.

night and day difference.

if i've ever come off, as philsthrills has openly opined, 'holier than thou', it's likely because instructors who haven't actually worked at a resort where a dozen or more schools vie for guest traffic have no F&*$ing CLUE what it is to have to turn out superior lessona day in and out, esp. when one considers that the average euro ski school has each group for weeks on end, every day!!!!
when I observe the horrific, fat, slow lessons that lazy, careless, inept american snowboard instructors dole out, I am awestruck and wonder how our skiing public tolerates it. precious few american snowboard instructors would last a day in a european school.

night and day difference, again.
Vlad:

That is an interesting post.

I have worked both in the US and in Europe for a long time, and I take some umbrage at your categorizations of each.

I have observed excellent Snowboard schools in America, and I have found some of the very worst to reside in Europe.

I have witnessed European Snowboard lessons in which the instructor simply rode ahead of the students and looked at his watch for hours.

At what schools have you taught, and where is the school which you manage?

I will be in "CH" in January and part of February, and I enjoy travelling to various resorts when I am not teaching.

I would welcome an opportunity to Snowboard with you and observe your school.

I take some umbrage, also, with your categorization of Snowboard Summer camps.

For many of those young people whom you seem to regard as brats,

Snowboard camp is a wonderful opportunity to spend some time away

from all-day video games and "hanging out".

Before you cast a mass aspersion over such programs, remember that

modern suburban young people now share many of the issues with which

urban youth have contended for years.

A Summer at Snowboard camp can be the difference between a young

person developing some confidence and socialization, or turning toward a

seamier lifestyle.

While I agree with much of your technical ideaology, your blanket-

statements serve as revelation of your inexperience in developmental

education principles.

A less cynical approach might muddle your apparent Snowboard

instructing expertise less.

Thank You

Hem
post #23 of 23
ahem,

Vlad has been dispatched to North Umbrage. Although I found him to be reasonable and most knowledgeable in private once you cracked the veneer, he had a habit of making overly provocative posts to get conversation started. Alas, as such, we won't be having Vlad to kick us around any longer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: