Oops. I forgot, I wanted to address the issue of the stance used by racers as they carve high-speed turns.
Basically, it seems silly to use this to 'prove' that racers are using a narrow stance. The argument is that, though their skis are far apart, this is because of the angulation in their turn, and they are actually skiing in a narrow stance. This seems rather silly to me. As the angulation increases, the distance between each leg must decrease as well. It's impossible to ski with that kind of angulation and have the legs far apart. Why? Well, at a certain angle, moving the legs apart won't move your skis further apart, it will just lift the outside ski off the hill - or it would, if not for the enormous forces on that leg and ski in the turn. I challenge you to find me a picture of any racer skiing to the "legs far apart" definition of a wide stance. If you can, I'll surrender the point.
So essentially, saying a racer is in a narrow or wide stance during his turns is silly - he or she is skiing functionally, with the technique that they need to maintain their edge angles on the snow. If I had to choose though, I would choose "wide" and define "wide" as the distance between the skis and not the distance between the legs. A good example to use is a fast, short carved turn. In this kind of turn, adopting a wider stance is most effective to achieve the edge angles needed. As the speed increases to say, slalom or giant slalom speed, the amount of angulation required to hold the turn increases. As this angulation increases, the legs move closer together, but the skis will stay at the same seperation, or even move further apart.
For this example, I said I was choosing wide, but in truth, "wide" isn't really any better a description of the racer's stance than "narrow." The stance required by a high-speed racing turn is a wide stance in one sense(the skis are far apart) but narrow in another sense (the legs are close together). Since neither "wide" nor "narrow" really completely describe it, why not just call it "functional" or "open" and stop trying to use it to prove a point about stance? In a way, what this example really proves is that there are certain methods one uses in certain situations, and certain methods one uses in other situations. One is not more right or wrong than the other - unless you use it in the wrong situation!
The last thing you might expect to hear from me in this thread is a quote from Lito's site, but here it is: "All techniques are possible." Sounds very right to me.