Lu,
I will repeat something I said 2 pages ago:
>>Why do you deflect the discussion to irrelevant details such as wether or not you do/don’t teach it that way rather than try and benefit from the explanations offered? You did not acknowledge that any points were even made.
For example, you have avoided any response to my opening posts on RBS, and on which parts of your understanding are flawed. Even in your new explanation of how you “really” teach it you are mixing concepts.<<
You have still not addressed ONE point. You had asked for specific examples/specific explanations to your theories, and I have seen them repeatedly offered to you by various (heedm, Arm out the window, Nick Lappos, sling load, etc) yet you answer only Dave Jackson, as per above. Is it because Dave does not question aspects of your theory?
How about you go back to the subject (RBS), look at the explanations offered to you in this thread, and talk specifics. Otherwise you may never grasp the fundamentals.
Perhaps the detailed gyroscopic discussions could be posted on Dave Jackson's excellent thread?