[Callers] Fwd: 9-person dance?

[Martha Wild via Callers]

More about Pride of Pingle.

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Martha Wild 
> Date: January 22, 2016 at 9:23:51 PM PST
> To: "Winston, Alan P." 
> Subject: Re: [Callers] 9-person dance?
> 
> You may find the following article by Ed Butenhof containing a letter from 
> Ken Alexander (p.7) in this short publication interesting, as it has more 
> info about P of P. The dance also had the new Pingle do a basket swing with 
> couple four during the swing part at the end!  Folk process in motion, as is 
> pointed out. The article is from 1982, Ken says he wrote the dance “some 
> years ago” so my guess would be sometime in the 1970s. 
> 
> http://www.lloydshaw.org/Resources/adc/198205i.pdf 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 7:51 PM, Winston, Alan P. > > wrote:
>> 
>> I had it in my head that it was written by Roger Whynot but googled and 
>> found an attribution to Ken Alexander.
>> 
>> I read someplace that it was written as "Pride of the Dingle".  I see that a 
>> dance of that name is listed as being in the Fried de Metz Herman collection 
>> (by multiple authors) "Potter's Porch", which I don't have here at work to 
>> verify.
>> 
>> Don't know if that helps in any way.
>> 
>> -- Alan
>> 
>> On 1/22/2016 6:59 PM, Martha Wild via Callers wrote:
>>> There’s a really neat oddball one by Erik Hoffman called “The Millennium 
>>> Bug”. Not sure what book of his it is in, though.
>>> 
>>> There’s another traditional one called “Pride of the Pingle” for four 
>>> couples +1. Line up as for a reel of four couples, doesn’t really matter if 
>>> it is proper or not. The lone person stands at the top center of the set 
>>> above the first couple and faces down.
>>> 
>>> Pride of the Pingle9 people, 4 couple (proper) set and one extra
>>> Traditional
>>> 
>>> A1) All up a double and back without taking hands, while the “Pingle” goes 
>>> down a double and back between them, 2X
>>> A2) All allemande right partners half way, turn around and allemande left 
>>> partners half way back. While this happens, the “Pingle” joins in the first 
>>> couple’s allemande with their right hand to form a little right hand star 
>>> of three. This moves the “Pingle” down one place, and they can then stick 
>>> out their left hand and join the left allemande of couple 2 as a little 
>>> group of 3.
>>> This is then repeated, with all continuing to allemande right partners half 
>>> way, allemande left partners half way back, as the “Pingle” joins in right 
>>> with couple 3, and then left with couple 4 to reach the bottom. A lot to 
>>> say but easier to do.
>>> B1) The “Pingle” then joins on to one or other of the long lines (in the 
>>> old strictly proper form they would join their gender role line, but 
>>> nowadays and in family dances it’s just join a line). The lines of four and 
>>> five then go forward and back twice, pushing the longer line up the set to 
>>> push out a new unmatched “Pingle” at the top. 
>>> B2) All then swing the person across from them that they are matched with, 
>>> except the new “Pingle”. 
>>> 
>>> I heard it called “Pride of the Pingle” but somewhere I also saw it as 
>>> “Pride of the Dingle” so I’m not perfectly sure which name it is. 
>>> 
>>> Martha
>>> 
 On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Andy Shore via Callers 
 mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
 wrote:
 
 The Prime Minister aka The New Parliament House Jig
 
 http://www.barndances.org.uk/dance-detail.php?danceNameParam=the-new-parliament-house-jig
  
 
 https://youtu.be/wa_zj_vY-RI 
 
 I descends into the usual chaos, but lots of fun
 
 /Andy Shore
 Santa Cruz, CA
 
 On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Richard Fischer via Callers 
 mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
 wrote:
 Can anyone suggest a 9-person dance?  I'm aware of the traditional 
 Nine-Pin, and Monkey in the Middle by Sherry Nevins.
 
 Thanks!
 
 Richard Fischer
 
 Princeton, NJ
 ___
 Callers mailing list
 Callers@lists.sharedweight.net 
 http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 /Andy Shore
 http://andyshore.com/ 
 
 best email - andysh...@gmail.com 
 ___
 Callers mailing list
 Callers@lists.sharedweight.net 
 http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _

Re: [Callers] 9-person dance?

[Keith Wood via Callers]

I've written a new one recently: The Curse of Scotland.

See an animation at 
http://dancekaleidoscope.org.au/dance.html#TheCurseOfScotland.


Formation:Longways set for four couples, plus one person extra in the 
centre between couples 2 and 3


Music:32 bar reels

Source:Keith Wood December 2015

Notes:For Anthony Simon's 60th birthday.

The 9 of Diamonds playing card is nicknamed the Curse of Scotland, 
supposedly because every 9th Scottish king (with diamonds in their 
crowns) was a tyrant. This dance is in the formation of the nine spots 
on the card.


The extra person is the nine-spot. If the nine-spot is a woman, then the 
stars are done left hand at the ends and right hand in the centre, with 
the nine-spot leading the 1st woman and finishing in her place.


1-4 	Nine-spot with 2nd couple arch over 1st couple (who don't move), 
nine-spot and 2nd man arch over 2nd woman to invert the line, and arch 
back down over 1st couple, 3rd and 4th couples circle left once around
5-8 	Nine-spot with 3rd couple arch over 4th couple (who don't move), 
nine-spot and 3rd woman arch over 3rd man to invert the line, and arch 
back up over 4th couple, 1st and 2nd couples circle left once around
9-16 	Double figure of eight at each end, 2nd and 3rd couples cast 
up/down respectively to start, 1st and 4th couples cross down/up
17-20 	1st and 2nd couples, and 3rd and 4th couples, half 
rights-and-lefts at each end
21-24 	1st and 4th couples half rights-and-lefts in the middle (around 
nine-spot), 2nd and 3rd couples swing with ceilidh hold
25-28 	1st and 3rd couples with nine-spot star right once around at the 
bottom (nine-spot in front of 1st man), 2nd and 4th couples star right 
at the top
29-32 	1st and 4th couples with nine-spot star left once around in the 
middle (nine-spot in front of 1st man), finishing with 1st man in the 
centre of the set as the new nine-spot, and the nine-spot opposite 1st 
woman, 2nd and 3rd couples swing with ceilidh hold



Cheers

Keith


Can anyone suggest a 9-person dance?  I'm aware of the traditional Nine-Pin, 
and Monkey in the Middle by Sherry Nevins.

Thanks!

Richard Fischer

Princeton, NJ
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

[Callers] Weary of the same discussions

[Amy Carroll via Callers]

I'm sorry, but it really isn't enough to just ignore the posts.  They fill my inbox and become another pile of stuff to filter through trying to find the email I really need/want to read.I feel as though this discussion happened already, quite recently, and it's just the same thing again.  No one is convincing anyone.  It all started with the simple announcement about a lecture, and then some snarky comments re sparked this entire discussion. Yuck.Questions:#1) Is it possible to recieve a daily digest of this list instead of each individual message?  Like you can do with yahoo groups.  Then I wouldn't mind all the junk so much.#2) Is there a facebook equivalent of this list?  Those are nice, because when you don't have time, you don't bother to look.  If you don't comment, you don't see the whole discussion unless you really go looking for it.  I would appreciate the discussion, even the repeated discussion,  that happens here a lot more if it were not in my email.  Other solutions?yours,Amy Carrolla...@calleramy.com206-330-7408http://www.calleramy.com/

Re: [Callers] Ending the discussion, was Re: Thoughts on ethnicity, was That g word

[Laur via Callers]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px 
#715FFA solid !important;  padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white 
!important; }  Janet, just saying. I found your post fascinating.  I stopped 
following / reading the g posts. 
Laurie


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


On Friday, January 22, 2016, 10:23 PM, Janet Bertog via Callers 
 wrote:

So, it has occurred to me that I, myself, have left some groups because this 
discussion has gotten me very worked up, and here I am again, commenting on it. 
 I apologize, I know I have been um ... out of sorts ... recently and have 
reasons that I suppose I should not share publicly.  Anyway, unless someone 
specifically wants a reply from me, I will no longer post on the subject to 
save my health.  
Ja et
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Janet Bertog via Callers 
 wrote:

Prelude:  This post is tangential to the gypsy discussion and likely 
controversial.  If you are not interested, delete now.  Moderators, if you feel 
it is not an appropriate topic for this list tell me and I will cease any 
future posts on the matter.  
So, let's pretend for a moment that gypsy has been proven to originate from the 
term used to refer to the Roma (we all know that I do not believe this), or 
that it doesn't matter what it's origin is, the fact that it does have one 
meaning that refers to the Roma people is all that matters (we all know that I 
also do not believe this).  Let us also pretend for a minute that it doesn't 
matter that in American English the term has come to mean a free-spirited 
traveler.  We are going to pretend that gypsy only is a racial slur against 
Romani.
First I will point out that Romani (Roma, I have seen both used, not sure which 
is "most correct"), and Romani advocates, who feel that the word Gypsy is a 
slur, always capitalize the word to enforce that it is a reference to the 
ethnicity.  So, first of all, if it not capitalized, does that not mean that it 
does not refer to the ethnicity (I asked Carol this, she did not respond).  But 
that is not really what this post is about.  
So, this discussion about removing gypsy from our dance lexicon is due to the 
fact that the Roma are holding on to their heritage and the use of the word as 
a slur against them (yes, I recognize that in some places, the Roma are still 
persecuted today).  When I have asked Roma or Romani advocates about the word, 
the response I usually get is something along the lines of "well, what if the 
move was called the jew instead"?  Well, I'm not jew, so I don't really relate 
to that either.  In fact, I one of the least racially persecuted groups in 
existence it would seem, although I am female and blond.  But, I digress.  
Among the discussions, I have been informed that Gypsy refers to the ethnicity, 
not the lifestyle and that the practice of the Romani people to travel was 
forced upon them.  However, I have read that, in fact, many of the persecutions 
were just the opposite - forcing them to settle 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Persecutions).  
Conversely, the ethnic term can be used as a slur.  For example:
jew - someone who is stingypolish - a stupid person
So, every single person in North America is an immigrant (yes, even the "Native 
Americans, although much earlier than others).  Every single person's ancestor 
who moved to America came to America for a reason.  Some were forced (such as 
slaves) but many came here to escape what they were leaving behind and to 
hopefully provide a better life for their families and themselves.  So, why is 
it then that so many racial groups who move to America to escape their history, 
choose to also hold on to their history?  This is not just Roma, and it is, 
oddly enough, not all races.  Very few Germans or English in America refer to 
themselves as Germans or English (in Cincinnati we have an Oktoberfest every 
year, owing to the large number of people of German descent, but for 360 days 
of the year, these people are American).  If these people moved to America, why 
are they not just Americans?  Why are they holding on to an ethnic past?  When 
I ask a Roma why they use the word Gypsy to refer to themselves, the most 
common answer I get is "people know the word Gypsy, but do not know what a Roma 
is".  So, if people do not even know what a Roma is, how can they be 
persecuting them?  If people who move to America want to be American, why do 
they hold on to their ethnicity and continue to be offended by words that refer 
to that ethnicity (this is a genuine question, I cannot at all relate to this 
and so it makes no sense to me).  This is not just the Roma, any group of 
people who come to America and yet hold on to their ethnic traditions do not 
make a lot of sense to me, especially if they are 2nd,  3rd, 4th or more 
generation Americans who have never even been to the place of origin for their 
ethnicity.  
According to the US Census, for the first time in 2000 a 

Re: [Callers] Choreography and Copyright

[Winston, Alan P. via Callers]

On 1/22/2016 7:02 PM, Martha Wild via Callers wrote:

Call a dance written by someone else:
Pretty much always, is my guess. If I note down a dance at a festival and I 
like it, I call it, and try to get all attributions for announcement. Maybe if 
there was a caller who stipulate that no one was to call their dances without 
express permission or proof they’d bought the book - but I don’t know of a 
caller doing that.

Agreed!


Publish a dance written by someone else:
If the dance is on the author's open website, or I know the caller personally 
and know they are happy to have their dances spread throughout the community, 
then fine. If a dance is in a book that one has to buy, then never - might 
mention the name and author, and maybe the book, but I wouldn’t give out the 
dance details. Don’t know? Don’t publish it.
I assume you're using "publish" to mean "disseminate" - give out the 
instructions on mailing lists, let people see your card, whatever.
If so, agreed!  To be excessively anal about it, I would disagree if 
"publish" meant "include in a collection I was putting out to sell" 
(without getting express permission from the author.)




Modify, borrow from, a dance written by someone else?
Always! If it’s a small change and I’m calling it I just give the author credit 
and say it’s a slight variant (forward and back instead of circle left for 
example). Using an interesting figure and sticking it in a new context 
substantially different from the original - no problem, but I might credit the 
original on a website for example - “inspired by Title, by So-and-So”.
Agreed.  And sometimes the name of the new dance can have a nod to the 
name of the old dance.



Very different from English Country, by the way. If someone has written a dance 
there, and you realize that a turn single left would be so much more intuitive 
and flow better than a turn single right, heaven forfend that you should 
suggest changing the author’s original intention! Even if maybe it was an 
oversight originally! Liberty is NOT to be taken, at least with modern dances - 
though it’s a little grayer with traditional dances that various people 
interpret differently because the original directions are sometimes obscure.


Not *always*.   I have seen respected ECD leaders call things 
differently than they were written, although they usually call attention 
to it when doing it.  I have also had someone ask me if a particular 
modification of a dance I'd written - a right-hand turn instead of a 
g-word  - was acceptable to me, and I said "sure", and wasn't honked 
that he called it that way.  I was pleased when he put it on the program 
of a ball he was calling, and then honked when the ball booklet had the 
modified version and listed the dance as a collaboration between the two 
of us.





As for me - as a dance choreographer - please feel free to spread my dances - 
they are on my website, and I wrote them to go out into the world and be 
fruitful and multiply and all that.

Thanks for that!  I've called some of them and been happy to have them.

-- Alan

Re: [Callers] Choreography and Copyright

[Laur via Callers]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px 
#715FFA solid !important;  padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white 
!important; }  I agree with everything Janet said.  In addition before I'd 
publish anything I'd ask permission then credit the author. 
Laurie p


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


On Friday, January 22, 2016, 7:11 PM, Janet Bertog via Callers 
 wrote:



> Under what circumstances do we have the moral and/or legal right to:
> 1) Call a dance written by someone else?

This is part of the folk process and the best way to get dances in circulation. 
If people only called their own dances or had to pay royalties to call other 
people's dances, a lot of dances would never get called. 


> 2) Publish a dance written by someone else?

No. The choreographer should publish their dances, unless they ask someone else 
to do it. I know some choreographers don't want their dances published, for 
some reason. 

> 3) Modify, or borrow from, a dance written by someone else?

If you modify a dance in a very minor way, my policy is to say it is a 
variation of that dance and credit the original choreographer. If you borrow a 
move or sequence from a dance, I personally believe you should credit the 
origin of the move or sequence in a foot note when you publish it. 

Janet
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

 
   

[Callers] Ending the discussion, was Re: Thoughts on ethnicity, was That g word

[Janet Bertog via Callers]

So, it has occurred to me that I, myself, have left some groups because
this discussion has gotten me very worked up, and here I am again,
commenting on it.  I apologize, I know I have been um ... out of sorts ...
recently and have reasons that I suppose I should not share publicly.
Anyway, unless someone specifically wants a reply from me, I will no longer
post on the subject to save my health.

Ja et

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Prelude:  This post is tangential to the gypsy discussion and likely
> controversial.  If you are not interested, delete now.  Moderators, if you
> feel it is not an appropriate topic for this list tell me and I will cease
> any future posts on the matter.
>
> So, let's pretend for a moment that gypsy has been proven to originate
> from the term used to refer to the Roma (we all know that I do not believe
> this), or that it doesn't matter what it's origin is, the fact that it does
> have one meaning that refers to the Roma people is all that matters (we all
> know that I also do not believe this).  Let us also pretend for a minute
> that it doesn't matter that in American English the term has come to mean a
> free-spirited traveler.  We are going to pretend that gypsy only is a
> racial slur against Romani.
>
> First I will point out that Romani (Roma, I have seen both used, not sure
> which is "most correct"), and Romani advocates, who feel that the word
> Gypsy is a slur, always capitalize the word to enforce that it is a
> reference to the ethnicity.  So, first of all, if it not capitalized, does
> that not mean that it does not refer to the ethnicity (I asked Carol this,
> she did not respond).  But that is not really what this post is about.
>
> So, this discussion about removing gypsy from our dance lexicon is due to
> the fact that the Roma are holding on to their heritage and the use of the
> word as a slur against them (yes, I recognize that in some places, the Roma
> are still persecuted today).  When I have asked Roma or Romani advocates
> about the word, the response I usually get is something along the lines of
> "well, what if the move was called the jew instead"?  Well, I'm not jew, so
> I don't really relate to that either.  In fact, I one of the least racially
> persecuted groups in existence it would seem, although I am female and
> blond.  But, I digress.  Among the discussions, I have been informed that
> Gypsy refers to the ethnicity, not the lifestyle and that the practice of
> the Romani people to travel was forced upon them.  However, I have read
> that, in fact, many of the persecutions were just the opposite - forcing
> them to settle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Persecutions).
>
>
> Conversely, the ethnic term can be used as a slur.  For example:
>
> jew - someone who is stingy
> polish - a stupid person
>
> So, every single person in North America is an immigrant (yes, even the
> "Native Americans, although much earlier than others).  Every single
> person's ancestor who moved to America came to America for a reason.  Some
> were forced (such as slaves) but many came here to escape what they were
> leaving behind and to hopefully provide a better life for their families
> and themselves.  So, why is it then that so many racial groups who move to
> America to escape their history, choose to also hold on to their history?
> This is not just Roma, and it is, oddly enough, not all races.  Very few
> Germans or English in America refer to themselves as Germans or English (in
> Cincinnati we have an Oktoberfest every year, owing to the large number of
> people of German descent, but for 360 days of the year, these people are
> American).  If these people moved to America, why are they not just
> Americans?  Why are they holding on to an ethnic past?  When I ask a Roma
> why they use the word Gypsy to refer to themselves, the most common answer
> I get is "people know the word Gypsy, but do not know what a Roma is".  So,
> if people do not even know what a Roma is, how can they be persecuting
> them?  If people who move to America want to be American, why do they hold
> on to their ethnicity and continue to be offended by words that refer to
> that ethnicity (this is a genuine question, I cannot at all relate to this
> and so it makes no sense to me).  This is not just the Roma, any group of
> people who come to America and yet hold on to their ethnic traditions do
> not make a lot of sense to me, especially if they are 2nd,  3rd, 4th or
> more generation Americans who have never even been to the place of origin
> for their ethnicity.
>
> According to the US Census, for the first time in 2000 a significant
> number of people responded to the question about ancestry by stating that
> they were American jumped from 12.4 million in 1990 to 20.2 million in 2000
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity).  In the most recent
> census report on the census page (
> h

Re: [Callers] Compensating for SharedWeight's Limitation re: Threads

[Laur via Callers]

Please don't leave, just ignore the thread. Or filter. You don't have to read 
every post.
Laurie


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


On Friday, January 22, 2016, 1:52 PM, Karin Neils via Callers 
 wrote:

 "There is not way to peace. Peace is the way."
 thanks Don
 Karin

 On 1/22/2016 1:09 PM, Don Veino via Callers wrote:

I'm sad to see several postings recently of folks considering leaving the 
Shared Weight list over issues regarding the volume or tone of postings on 
particular topics. I realize the following is a workaround for something others 
might want to fix culturally, but I hope it may assist someone on the cusp of 
leaving to find a means to stay with us.

  Shared Weight is an email-based forum, and as such we don't have at our 
immediate use an "unfollow" function like those present in a website "forum" 
site. On those sites, typically one can designate easily a topic thread they 
wish to no longer receive notifications of but otherwise continue to  enjoy the 
full participation of the resource.

  In case you are contemplating ditching Shared Weight due to this issue, you 
may wish to consider using your email client's filter capability. For instance, 
with GMail, one can click on the "More -> Filter messages like these" option to 
keep out messages you no longer wish to see in your inbox. You can filter on 
single items like sender, subject line content or a combination.

  -Don


 ___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net



|| This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
www.avast.com  |

___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Run its course?

[Laur via Callers]

I am like you Ron, I simply ignore the posts that are - that I'm not interested 
in. And I suggest others do the same. 
Eventually that thread will become a dialogue between one or two others and 
either the list admin can opt them out or they'll go on sparring forever more. 
Laurie p


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


On Friday, January 22, 2016, 1:43 PM, Seth Seeger via Callers 
 wrote:

Ron,
I am carefully not policing what discussions are allowed.  I’m simply asking 
people to ask themselves if the conversation has gone far enough.  Is what they 
are going to say really going to further the conversation?  I was pretty 
careful not to police.
However, I agree about hitting the delete key quickly if you’re not interested 
in a conversation.
Seth


On Jan 22, 2016, at 1:34 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
 wrote:

When I find topics in shared weight that I don't care to participate in, I 
ignore them.

Please don't police what we are allowed to discuss or not discuss.
On Jan 22, 2016 1:01 PM, "Michael Fuerst via Callers" 
 wrote:

During a contra dance, the eighth beat of music indicates to the participants 
when to exit from the circular gypsy figure.  The ongoing discussion lacks such 
luxury Michael Fuerst      802 N Broadway      Urbana IL 61801  217 239 
5844 

On Friday, January 22, 2016 11:50 AM, Seth Seeger via Callers 
 wrote:
 

 Dear callers,
Perhaps it is time to ask yourself, “has this gypsy discussion run its course?” 
 Are any more replies truly adding to the conversation?  I imagine that at this 
point, no one’s mind is going to be changed…
Thank you for considering!Seth

https://xkcd.com/386/
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net


   
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net


___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net


___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

 
   

Re: [Callers] Choreography and Copyright

[Martha Wild via Callers]

Call a dance written by someone else:
Pretty much always, is my guess. If I note down a dance at a festival and I 
like it, I call it, and try to get all attributions for announcement. Maybe if 
there was a caller who stipulate that no one was to call their dances without 
express permission or proof they’d bought the book - but I don’t know of a 
caller doing that.

Publish a dance written by someone else:
If the dance is on the author's open website, or I know the caller personally 
and know they are happy to have their dances spread throughout the community, 
then fine. If a dance is in a book that one has to buy, then never - might 
mention the name and author, and maybe the book, but I wouldn’t give out the 
dance details. Don’t know? Don’t publish it.

Modify, borrow from, a dance written by someone else?
Always! If it’s a small change and I’m calling it I just give the author credit 
and say it’s a slight variant (forward and back instead of circle left for 
example). Using an interesting figure and sticking it in a new context 
substantially different from the original - no problem, but I might credit the 
original on a website for example - “inspired by Title, by So-and-So”.

Very different from English Country, by the way. If someone has written a dance 
there, and you realize that a turn single left would be so much more intuitive 
and flow better than a turn single right, heaven forfend that you should 
suggest changing the author’s original intention! Even if maybe it was an 
oversight originally! Liberty is NOT to be taken, at least with modern dances - 
though it’s a little grayer with traditional dances that various people 
interpret differently because the original directions are sometimes obscure.

As for me - as a dance choreographer - please feel free to spread my dances - 
they are on my website, and I wrote them to go out into the world and be 
fruitful and multiply and all that.

Martha

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 4:03 PM, Jeremy Child via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> The folk community is generally very open on sharing ideas and choreography.  
> I suspect few of us would think twice about calling a dance that we found 
> when someone else called it at an event.  As for publishing it on the 
> internet, we'd probably be more reticent, especially if the author has not 
> published it, or has done so in booklets that are sold.
> 
> This is generally the opposite of what happens in other dance communities, 
> where the creation is jealously guarded.  This made me wonder whether we are 
> too lax in assuming that a choreographer is happy for us to make full use of 
> their work.  So my question on the subject of copyright of choreography is:
> 
> Under what circumstances do we have the moral and/or legal right to:
> 1) Call a dance written by someone else?
> 2) Publish a dance written by someone else?
> 3) Modify, or borrow from, a dance written by someone else?
> 
> Jeremy
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] 9-person dance?

[Martha Wild via Callers]

There’s a really neat oddball one by Erik Hoffman called “The Millennium Bug”. 
Not sure what book of his it is in, though.

There’s another traditional one called “Pride of the Pingle” for four couples 
+1. Line up as for a reel of four couples, doesn’t really matter if it is 
proper or not. The lone person stands at the top center of the set above the 
first couple and faces down.

Pride of the Pingle9 people, 4 couple (proper) set and one extra
Traditional

A1) All up a double and back without taking hands, while the “Pingle” goes down 
a double and back between them, 2X
A2) All allemande right partners half way, turn around and allemande left 
partners half way back. While this happens, the “Pingle” joins in the first 
couple’s allemande with their right hand to form a little right hand star of 
three. This moves the “Pingle” down one place, and they can then stick out 
their left hand and join the left allemande of couple 2 as a little group of 3.
This is then repeated, with all continuing to allemande right partners half 
way, allemande left partners half way back, as the “Pingle” joins in right with 
couple 3, and then left with couple 4 to reach the bottom. A lot to say but 
easier to do.
B1) The “Pingle” then joins on to one or other of the long lines (in the old 
strictly proper form they would join their gender role line, but nowadays and 
in family dances it’s just join a line). The lines of four and five then go 
forward and back twice, pushing the longer line up the set to push out a new 
unmatched “Pingle” at the top. 
B2) All then swing the person across from them that they are matched with, 
except the new “Pingle”. 

I heard it called “Pride of the Pingle” but somewhere I also saw it as “Pride 
of the Dingle” so I’m not perfectly sure which name it is. 

Martha

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Andy Shore via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> The Prime Minister aka The New Parliament House Jig
> 
> http://www.barndances.org.uk/dance-detail.php?danceNameParam=the-new-parliament-house-jig
>  
> 
> https://youtu.be/wa_zj_vY-RI 
> 
> I descends into the usual chaos, but lots of fun
> 
> /Andy Shore
> Santa Cruz, CA
> 
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Richard Fischer via Callers 
> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
> wrote:
> Can anyone suggest a 9-person dance?  I'm aware of the traditional Nine-Pin, 
> and Monkey in the Middle by Sherry Nevins.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Richard Fischer
> 
> Princeton, NJ
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net 
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> /Andy Shore
> http://andyshore.com/ 
> 
> best email - andysh...@gmail.com 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Unsubscribe

[Winston, Alan P. via Callers]

I don't have anything administratively to do with the sharedweight 
lists, but I do run other lists, so
one of my pet peeves is people sending their administrative requests to 
the whole list, which may or
may not do anything and just makes work for the administrators. (Some 
software catches admin requests
in subject lines of posts and sends them to the administrators, but 
since this went to the whole list I think not.)


To unsubscribe, go to the link at the bottom of every single message 
that comes from the list:


http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Follow fairly-obvious links to unsubscribe.  If you don't remember your 
list password (sent to you every single month) you may need to ask for a 
password reminder.


-- Alan


On 1/22/2016 6:42 PM, Lindsay Morris via Callers wrote:



On Friday, January 22, 2016, Aahz Maruch via Callers 
> wrote:


On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, Lindsay Morris via Callers wrote:
>
> I'm about to leave this list because I'm so appalled at the
amount of time
> spent on this discussion. So many smart, good people: surely we
all have
> something better to do?

Sounds like you're policing what other people choose to spend
their time
on.  Oddly enough, I've seen comments like yours countless times
when the
subject lands on sexism, racism, homophobia, and so on.  What I find
especially interesting is that these types of comments are louder when
it's a subject that isn't "generally recognized" to be hurtful. In my
own lifetime, I've watched the discussion shift significantly when the
subject is homophobia, and I currently watch appalled as fatphobia is
still considered acceptable (with constant deprecatory comments
similar
to yours).

People whose lives are adversely affected by prejudice don't have the
luxury of walking away from the discussion.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>  <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net 
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net



--

Lindsay Morris
CEO, TSMworks
Tel. 1-859-539-9900
lind...@tsmworks.com 


___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

[Callers] Unsubscribe

[Lindsay Morris via Callers]

On Friday, January 22, 2016, Aahz Maruch via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, Lindsay Morris via Callers wrote:
> >
> > I'm about to leave this list because I'm so appalled at the amount of
> time
> > spent on this discussion. So many smart, good people: surely we all have
> > something better to do?
>
> Sounds like you're policing what other people choose to spend their time
> on.  Oddly enough, I've seen comments like yours countless times when the
> subject lands on sexism, racism, homophobia, and so on.  What I find
> especially interesting is that these types of comments are louder when
> it's a subject that isn't "generally recognized" to be hurtful.  In my
> own lifetime, I've watched the discussion shift significantly when the
> subject is homophobia, and I currently watch appalled as fatphobia is
> still considered acceptable (with constant deprecatory comments similar
> to yours).
>
> People whose lives are adversely affected by prejudice don't have the
> luxury of walking away from the discussion.
> --
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
> http://rule6.info/
>   <*>   <*>   <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net 
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>


-- 

Lindsay Morris
CEO, TSMworks
Tel. 1-859-539-9900
lind...@tsmworks.com

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Chris Page via Callers]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Aahz Maruch via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Sounds like you're policing what other people choose to spend their time
> on.  Oddly enough, I've seen comments like yours countless times when the
> subject lands on sexism, racism, homophobia, and so on.  What I find
> especially interesting is that these types of comments are louder when
> it's a subject that isn't "generally recognized" to be hurtful.  In my
> own lifetime, I've watched the discussion shift significantly when the
> subject is homophobia, and I currently watch appalled as fatphobia is
> still considered acceptable (with constant deprecatory comments similar
> to yours).
>


Or we're just tired of hearing the same arguments back and forth. Does one
person's sixth email on the same topic really help?

(See also long conversations from October 2015, November 2015, and hundreds
of Facebook posts.)

There's times when you reach a point where you won't convince each other
for now. Meanwhile it drowns out a once productive list into raw noise.

I'm now skimming the archives back from a few years ago, and miss the days
when there was more discussion of various topics. The list was originally
created to well, to do this:

http://www.sharedweight.net/index.php?pagestate=about

Curmudgeonly,
-Chris Page
San Diego, CA

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Aahz Maruch via Callers]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, sargo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via Callers 
>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, via Callers wrote:
>>> 
>>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread
>>> ignorance of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem
>>> with the verb "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to
>>> exonerate a word despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist
>>> etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a word falsely gets attributed to
>>> a category in which it doesn't belong is irrelevant. If two separate
>>> meanings/derivations converge to an identically spelled modern word,
>>> I don't believe the innocent word (when used in its original context)
>>> deserves to be written off. Let us truly abide by what you claim to
>>> support: its current use *is* relevant.
>> 
>> Let me know the next time you use "gay" to mean something roughly similar
>> to "happy" or "joyful", but for which there is no direct substitute.
>> Despite my support for queer rights (given that two of my partners are
>> bisexual, among other reasons), that's the one real loss I still feel.
>
> Honestly, it will be next December when I sing Christmas carols again :-)

That's quoting, no different from watching an old movie.  (And watching
_Victor/Victoria_ is especially interesting in this regard.)  I meant
you, personally, using the word in conversation.  I'll bet you've pretty
much wiped it out of your everyday vocabulary.  The fact that you've
admitted it will be almost a year from now indicates that you understand
the point I'm making.  ;-)
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
"If you want a picture of the future of Usenet, imagine a foot stuck in
a human mouth -- forever."  --Avram Grumer

[Callers] Thoughts on ethnicity, was That g word

[Janet Bertog via Callers]

Prelude:  This post is tangential to the gypsy discussion and likely
controversial.  If you are not interested, delete now.  Moderators, if you
feel it is not an appropriate topic for this list tell me and I will cease
any future posts on the matter.

So, let's pretend for a moment that gypsy has been proven to originate from
the term used to refer to the Roma (we all know that I do not believe
this), or that it doesn't matter what it's origin is, the fact that it does
have one meaning that refers to the Roma people is all that matters (we all
know that I also do not believe this).  Let us also pretend for a minute
that it doesn't matter that in American English the term has come to mean a
free-spirited traveler.  We are going to pretend that gypsy only is a
racial slur against Romani.

First I will point out that Romani (Roma, I have seen both used, not sure
which is "most correct"), and Romani advocates, who feel that the word
Gypsy is a slur, always capitalize the word to enforce that it is a
reference to the ethnicity.  So, first of all, if it not capitalized, does
that not mean that it does not refer to the ethnicity (I asked Carol this,
she did not respond).  But that is not really what this post is about.

So, this discussion about removing gypsy from our dance lexicon is due to
the fact that the Roma are holding on to their heritage and the use of the
word as a slur against them (yes, I recognize that in some places, the Roma
are still persecuted today).  When I have asked Roma or Romani advocates
about the word, the response I usually get is something along the lines of
"well, what if the move was called the jew instead"?  Well, I'm not jew, so
I don't really relate to that either.  In fact, I one of the least racially
persecuted groups in existence it would seem, although I am female and
blond.  But, I digress.  Among the discussions, I have been informed that
Gypsy refers to the ethnicity, not the lifestyle and that the practice of
the Romani people to travel was forced upon them.  However, I have read
that, in fact, many of the persecutions were just the opposite - forcing
them to settle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Persecutions).

Conversely, the ethnic term can be used as a slur.  For example:

jew - someone who is stingy
polish - a stupid person

So, every single person in North America is an immigrant (yes, even the
"Native Americans, although much earlier than others).  Every single
person's ancestor who moved to America came to America for a reason.  Some
were forced (such as slaves) but many came here to escape what they were
leaving behind and to hopefully provide a better life for their families
and themselves.  So, why is it then that so many racial groups who move to
America to escape their history, choose to also hold on to their history?
This is not just Roma, and it is, oddly enough, not all races.  Very few
Germans or English in America refer to themselves as Germans or English (in
Cincinnati we have an Oktoberfest every year, owing to the large number of
people of German descent, but for 360 days of the year, these people are
American).  If these people moved to America, why are they not just
Americans?  Why are they holding on to an ethnic past?  When I ask a Roma
why they use the word Gypsy to refer to themselves, the most common answer
I get is "people know the word Gypsy, but do not know what a Roma is".  So,
if people do not even know what a Roma is, how can they be persecuting
them?  If people who move to America want to be American, why do they hold
on to their ethnicity and continue to be offended by words that refer to
that ethnicity (this is a genuine question, I cannot at all relate to this
and so it makes no sense to me).  This is not just the Roma, any group of
people who come to America and yet hold on to their ethnic traditions do
not make a lot of sense to me, especially if they are 2nd,  3rd, 4th or
more generation Americans who have never even been to the place of origin
for their ethnicity.

According to the US Census, for the first time in 2000 a significant number
of people responded to the question about ancestry by stating that they
were American jumped from 12.4 million in 1990 to 20.2 million in 2000 (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity).  In the most recent
census report on the census page (
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_5YR_B04004&prodType=table)
the top groups of identified ancestry in the United States was:

American 20 million
German 15 million (slurs include boche due to the stereotype of germans
being hard-headed, Fritz, Huns meaning savage and ruthless, Jerry, Kraut
from saurkraut, squarehead from the stereotype of the shape of their heads)
English 9 million (slurs include Gringo, Pom, Pommie, etc)
Irish 9 million (bog irish refrerring to a low class Irish, Dogan possibly
from Dugan - an Irish surname, Mick, Paddy - which has been embraced by
Irish even though

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Aahz Maruch via Callers]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, Lindsay Morris via Callers wrote:
>
> I'm about to leave this list because I'm so appalled at the amount of time
> spent on this discussion. So many smart, good people: surely we all have
> something better to do?

Sounds like you're policing what other people choose to spend their time
on.  Oddly enough, I've seen comments like yours countless times when the
subject lands on sexism, racism, homophobia, and so on.  What I find
especially interesting is that these types of comments are louder when
it's a subject that isn't "generally recognized" to be hurtful.  In my
own lifetime, I've watched the discussion shift significantly when the
subject is homophobia, and I currently watch appalled as fatphobia is
still considered acceptable (with constant deprecatory comments similar
to yours).

People whose lives are adversely affected by prejudice don't have the
luxury of walking away from the discussion.
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

Re: [Callers] 9-person dance?

[Andy Shore via Callers]

The Prime Minister aka The New Parliament House Jig

http://www.barndances.org.uk/dance-detail.php?danceNameParam=the-new-parliament-house-jig
https://youtu.be/wa_zj_vY-RI

I descends into the usual chaos, but lots of fun

/Andy Shore
Santa Cruz, CA

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Richard Fischer via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Can anyone suggest a 9-person dance?  I'm aware of the traditional
> Nine-Pin, and Monkey in the Middle by Sherry Nevins.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Richard Fischer
>
> Princeton, NJ
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>



-- 
/Andy Shore
http://andyshore.com/

best email - andysh...@gmail.com

[Callers] 9-person dance?

[Richard Fischer via Callers]

Can anyone suggest a 9-person dance?  I'm aware of the traditional Nine-Pin, 
and Monkey in the Middle by Sherry Nevins.

Thanks!

Richard Fischer

Princeton, NJ

Re: [Callers] Run its course?

[James Saxe via Callers]

As a couple of you have kindly pointed out, I unintentionally
sent my last message to the entire list.  Ooops.  I hop I didn't
say anything that will get me too much flak.

As most of you know, in order to avoid bad interactions with
anti-spoofing policies of so service providers, including AOL
and Yahoo


http://www.pcworld.com/article/2141120/yahoo-email-antispoofing-policy-breaks-mailing-lists.html

this list is set up to change senders' addresses from something
like

 John Smith 

to

 John Smith via Callers 

I remembered to make sure I used Seth's actual address in my
"To" line, but slipped up and left Neal as

 Neal Schlein via Callers 

Sorry if I've added noise to the discussion.

--Jim

   

Re: [Callers] Choreography and Copyright

[Janet Bertog via Callers]

> Under what circumstances do we have the moral and/or legal right to:
> 1) Call a dance written by someone else?

This is part of the folk process and the best way to get dances in
circulation. If people only called their own dances or had to pay royalties
to call other people's dances, a lot of dances would never get called.

> 2) Publish a dance written by someone else?

No. The choreographer should publish their dances, unless they ask someone
else to do it. I know some choreographers don't want their dances
published, for some reason.

> 3) Modify, or borrow from, a dance written by someone else?

If you modify a dance in a very minor way, my policy is to say it is a
variation of that dance and credit the original choreographer. If you
borrow a move or sequence from a dance, I personally believe you should
credit the origin of the move or sequence in a foot note when you publish
it.

Janet

Re: [Callers] Run its course?

[James Saxe via Callers]

Seth,

I'm writing this just to you (and to Neal, for reasons that you'll
see) and not to the whole list.  I see myself as someone whose mind
might be changed.  For example, if an alternative term for "gypsy"
became common in places where I dance and call--say, common enough
that you could use it while calling a medley and experienced dancers
would immediately know what you meant--and if I didn't find the new
term inherently objectionable for some reason, I'd probably go along
with using it.  Or if we heard from a fair number of Roma saying
they don't find the term "gypsy" objectionable as used in contra
dancing, and furthermore expressing the opinion that those who claim
offense are similar to, say, people who take offense that not all
English speakers everywhere are willing to adopt gender-free pronouns,
then I might feel happy to write off the whole issue.

As it is, the last time I called a dance using the figure in question,
I described it as a "two-eye turn" and everyone seemed to know what I
was talking about.  But if I'd seen some confusion, I'd have been
quick to add something like "otherwise known as a gypsy".  And if,
when I said "two-eye turn", someone had asked "Do you mean gypsy?",
I'd have said Yes, and I probably would not have gone into a spiel
about how some people find the term objectionable.

That said, I doubt that I or anyone else will likely be swayed by
the same people on the list continuing to repeat the same points
more emphatically.  So I agree with you there, and I thank you for
asking people to consider whether their replies are adding anything.

Neal,

You wrote:

> I've met Carol Silverman, ...  She and her husband are folk dancers and 
> musicians (mainly Balkan, but also contra).

I think this is the first I've read about Professor Silverman being
a contra dancer herself, as opposed to her merely having heard about
the use of the term "gypsy" in contra dance through correspondence
from someone on the SW callers' list.  If she indeed is at least an
occasional contra dancer, then I wonder:

 * Has she asked the callers where she dances to find an
   alternative term to "gypsy"?

 * If so, have they followed her request?

 * If so, what term do they now use and haw much acceptance
   and familiarity has it gained among local dancers and among
   other callers in her area and beyond?

Answers to these questions would bring at least a little new
information to the discussion, rather than more rehashing of what
has already been said.

Cheers,
--Jim

[Callers] Choreography and Copyright

[Jeremy Child via Callers]

The folk community is generally very open on sharing ideas and
choreography.  I suspect few of us would think twice about calling a dance
that we found when someone else called it at an event.  As for publishing
it on the internet, we'd probably be more reticent, especially if the
author has not published it, or has done so in booklets that are sold.

This is generally the opposite of what happens in other dance communities,
where the creation is jealously guarded.  This made me wonder whether we
are too lax in assuming that a choreographer is happy for us to make full
use of their work.  So my question on the subject of copyright of
choreography is:

Under what circumstances do we have the moral and/or legal right to:
1) Call a dance written by someone else?
2) Publish a dance written by someone else?
3) Modify, or borrow from, a dance written by someone else?

Jeremy

Re: [Callers] Compensating for SharedWeight's Limitation re: Threads

[Don Veino via Callers]

Jerome makes a great point here about the "Mute" capability, that's the
easiest solution for a given thread within GMail.

This might get you poking about and noticing there is also a "Block" option
for a sender - I urge caution with that one. Because SharedWeight rewrites
the sender address to the list's address when it forwards on posts, you may
end up blocking *all* list posts with that function even though it appears
you are blocking just one sender (e.g.: Don Veino via Callers).

You can screen out a particular sender through Gmail's filter settings, but
it is more complicated and requires manual editing of the filter.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Jerome Grisanti via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> In addition to filtering, for those who use Gmail, there is a More button
> above your mail, which contains the choice "Mute." When you mute a
> conversation, new messages in the thread bypass your inbox unless your name
> is added specifically as a recipient.
>
> https://support.google.com/mail/answer/47787?hl=en
>
>
>
> Jerome Grisanti
> 660-528-0858
> http://www.jeromegrisanti.com
>
> "Whatever you do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius and
> power and magic in it." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Karin Neils via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> "There is not way to peace. Peace is the way."
>> thanks Don
>> Karin
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/2016 1:09 PM, Don Veino via Callers wrote:
>>
>> I'm sad to see several postings recently of folks considering leaving the
>> Shared Weight list over issues regarding the volume or tone of postings on
>> particular topics. I realize the following is a workaround for something
>> others might want to fix culturally, but I hope it may assist someone on
>> the cusp of leaving to find a means to stay with us.
>>
>> Shared Weight is an email-based forum, and as such we don't have at our
>> immediate use an "unfollow" function like those present in a website
>> "forum" site. On those sites, typically one can designate easily a topic
>> thread they wish to no longer receive notifications of but otherwise
>> continue to enjoy the full participation of the resource.
>>
>> In case you are contemplating ditching Shared Weight due to this issue,
>> you may wish to consider using your email client's filter capability. For
>> instance, with GMail, one can click on the "More -> Filter messages like
>> these" option to keep out messages you no longer wish to see in your inbox.
>> You can filter on single items like sender, subject line content or a
>> combination.
>>
>> -Don
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Callers mailing 
>> listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>  This
>> email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
>> www.avast.com
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Compensating for SharedWeight's Limitation re: Threads

[Jerome Grisanti via Callers]

In addition to filtering, for those who use Gmail, there is a More button
above your mail, which contains the choice "Mute." When you mute a
conversation, new messages in the thread bypass your inbox unless your name
is added specifically as a recipient.

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/47787?hl=en



Jerome Grisanti
660-528-0858
http://www.jeromegrisanti.com

"Whatever you do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius and power
and magic in it." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Karin Neils via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> "There is not way to peace. Peace is the way."
> thanks Don
> Karin
>
>
> On 1/22/2016 1:09 PM, Don Veino via Callers wrote:
>
> I'm sad to see several postings recently of folks considering leaving the
> Shared Weight list over issues regarding the volume or tone of postings on
> particular topics. I realize the following is a workaround for something
> others might want to fix culturally, but I hope it may assist someone on
> the cusp of leaving to find a means to stay with us.
>
> Shared Weight is an email-based forum, and as such we don't have at our
> immediate use an "unfollow" function like those present in a website
> "forum" site. On those sites, typically one can designate easily a topic
> thread they wish to no longer receive notifications of but otherwise
> continue to enjoy the full participation of the resource.
>
> In case you are contemplating ditching Shared Weight due to this issue,
> you may wish to consider using your email client's filter capability. For
> instance, with GMail, one can click on the "More -> Filter messages like
> these" option to keep out messages you no longer wish to see in your inbox.
> You can filter on single items like sender, subject line content or a
> combination.
>
> -Don
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing 
> listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> 
>  This
> email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
> www.avast.com
> 
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Compensating for SharedWeight's Limitation re: Threads

[Karin Neils via Callers]

"There is not way to peace. Peace is the way."
thanks Don
Karin

On 1/22/2016 1:09 PM, Don Veino via Callers wrote:
I'm sad to see several postings recently of folks considering leaving 
the Shared Weight list over issues regarding the volume or tone of 
postings on particular topics. I realize the following is a workaround 
for something others might want to fix culturally, but I hope it may 
assist someone on the cusp of leaving to find a means to stay with us.


Shared Weight is an email-based forum, and as such we don't have at 
our immediate use an "unfollow" function like those present in a 
website "forum" site. On those sites, typically one can designate 
easily a topic thread they wish to no longer receive notifications of 
but otherwise continue to enjoy the full participation of the resource.


In case you are contemplating ditching Shared Weight due to this 
issue, you may wish to consider using your email client's filter 
capability. For instance, with GMail, one can click on the "More -> 
Filter messages like these" option to keep out messages you no longer 
wish to see in your inbox. You can filter on single items like sender, 
subject line content or a combination.


-Don


___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Callers] Run its course?

[Seth Seeger via Callers]

Ron,

I am carefully not policing what discussions are allowed.  I’m simply asking 
people to ask themselves if the conversation has gone far enough.  Is what they 
are going to say really going to further the conversation?  I was pretty 
careful not to police.

However, I agree about hitting the delete key quickly if you’re not interested 
in a conversation.

Seth


> On Jan 22, 2016, at 1:34 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> When I find topics in shared weight that I don't care to participate in, I 
> ignore them.
> 
> Please don't police what we are allowed to discuss or not discuss.
> 
> On Jan 22, 2016 1:01 PM, "Michael Fuerst via Callers" 
> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
> wrote:
> During a contra dance, the eighth beat of music indicates to the participants 
> when to exit from the circular gypsy figure.  The ongoing discussion lacks 
> such luxury
>  
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844 
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 11:50 AM, Seth Seeger via Callers 
> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear callers,
> 
> Perhaps it is time to ask yourself, “has this gypsy discussion run its 
> course?”  Are any more replies truly adding to the conversation?  I imagine 
> that at this point, no one’s mind is going to be changed…
> 
> Thank you for considering!
> Seth
> 
> 
> 
> https://xkcd.com/386/ 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net 
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net 
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 
> 
> 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Run its course?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

When I find topics in shared weight that I don't care to participate in, I
ignore them.

Please don't police what we are allowed to discuss or not discuss.
On Jan 22, 2016 1:01 PM, "Michael Fuerst via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> During a contra dance, the eighth beat of music indicates to the
> participants when to exit from the circular gypsy figure.  The ongoing
> discussion lacks such luxury
>
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844
>
>
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 11:50 AM, Seth Seeger via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> Dear callers,
>
> Perhaps it is time to ask yourself, “has this gypsy discussion run its
> course?”  Are any more replies truly adding to the conversation?  I imagine
> that at this point, no one’s mind is going to be changed…
>
> Thank you for considering!
> Seth
>
>
> https://xkcd.com/386/
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

[Callers] Compensating for SharedWeight's Limitation re: Threads

[Don Veino via Callers]

I'm sad to see several postings recently of folks considering leaving the
Shared Weight list over issues regarding the volume or tone of postings on
particular topics. I realize the following is a workaround for something
others might want to fix culturally, but I hope it may assist someone on
the cusp of leaving to find a means to stay with us.

Shared Weight is an email-based forum, and as such we don't have at our
immediate use an "unfollow" function like those present in a website
"forum" site. On those sites, typically one can designate easily a topic
thread they wish to no longer receive notifications of but otherwise
continue to enjoy the full participation of the resource.

In case you are contemplating ditching Shared Weight due to this issue, you
may wish to consider using your email client's filter capability. For
instance, with GMail, one can click on the "More -> Filter messages like
these" option to keep out messages you no longer wish to see in your inbox.
You can filter on single items like sender, subject line content or a
combination.

-Don

Re: [Callers] Run its course?

[Michael Fuerst via Callers]

During a contra dance, the eighth beat of music indicates to the participants 
when to exit from the circular gypsy figure.  The ongoing discussion lacks such 
luxury Michael Fuerst      802 N Broadway      Urbana IL 61801  217 239 
5844 

On Friday, January 22, 2016 11:50 AM, Seth Seeger via Callers 
 wrote:
 

 Dear callers,
Perhaps it is time to ask yourself, “has this gypsy discussion run its course?” 
 Are any more replies truly adding to the conversation?  I imagine that at this 
point, no one’s mind is going to be changed…
Thank you for considering!Seth

https://xkcd.com/386/
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

[Callers] Run its course?

[Seth Seeger via Callers]

Dear callers,

Perhaps it is time to ask yourself, “has this gypsy discussion run its course?” 
 Are any more replies truly adding to the conversation?  I imagine that at this 
point, no one’s mind is going to be changed…

Thank you for considering!
Seth



https://xkcd.com/386/ 

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Lindsay Morris via Callers]

I'm about to leave this list because I'm so appalled at the amount of time
spent on this discussion. So many smart, good people: surely we all have
something better to do?


On Friday, January 22, 2016, via Callers 
wrote:

> Honestly, it will be next December when I sing Christmas carols again :-)
>
> > On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, via Callers wrote:
> >>
> >> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread
> >> ignorance of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem
> >> with the verb "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to
> >> exonerate a word despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist
> >> etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a word falsely gets attributed to
> >> a category in which it doesn't belong is irrelevant. If two separate
> >> meanings/derivations converge to an identically spelled modern word,
> >> I don't believe the innocent word (when used in its original context)
> >> deserves to be written off. Let us truly abide by what you claim to
> >> support: its current use *is* relevant.
> >
> > Let me know the next time you use "gay" to mean something roughly similar
> > to "happy" or "joyful", but for which there is no direct substitute.
> > Despite my support for queer rights (given that two of my partners are
> > bisexual, among other reasons), that's the one real loss I still feel.
> > --
> > Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
> http://rule6.info/
> >  <*>   <*>   <*>
> > Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> > ___
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net 
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net 
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>


-- 

Lindsay Morris
CEO, TSMworks
Tel. 1-859-539-9900
lind...@tsmworks.com

Re: [Callers] That g word

[via Callers]

Honestly, it will be next December when I sing Christmas carols again :-)

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, via Callers wrote:
>> 
>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread
>> ignorance of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem
>> with the verb "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to
>> exonerate a word despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist
>> etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a word falsely gets attributed to
>> a category in which it doesn't belong is irrelevant. If two separate
>> meanings/derivations converge to an identically spelled modern word,
>> I don't believe the innocent word (when used in its original context)
>> deserves to be written off. Let us truly abide by what you claim to
>> support: its current use *is* relevant.
> 
> Let me know the next time you use "gay" to mean something roughly similar
> to "happy" or "joyful", but for which there is no direct substitute.
> Despite my support for queer rights (given that two of my partners are
> bisexual, among other reasons), that's the one real loss I still feel.
> -- 
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
>  <*>   <*>   <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Erik Hoffman via Callers]

Reminds me of a mediation I was sort of part of, where a pure-breed 
female dog was unsuccessfully inseminated by another of that breed. 
"Bitch" and "Stud" were used liberally, and, of course, accurately...


(It was a small claims court, we mediated, and the resulting 
decision--validated by the small claims judge--was: the person who owned 
the bitch got the pick of a litter from a bitch owned by the person with 
the stud. A result that would never have occurred had it gone to a 
judge. Both parties were satisfied with the result, if not exactly happy.)


~erik hoffman
oakland, ca

On 1/22/2016 9:15 AM, Martha Wild via Callers wrote:
And I don’t ban those words from my conversation if they are 
appropriate and in context. My daughter raises chickens. We talk about 
the cocks and the hens. In the lab the carboys have stopcocks on them. 
I have friends called Dick and I use their right name. Context is 
important, though if I were in the presence of an English language 
learner I might be careful assuming my listeners were not as familiar 
with different words. But that is also context.

Martha

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Ron Blechner > wrote:


It also means that I refrain from the following word uses:

"Gay" meaning happy.
"Cock" meaning rooster.
"Pussy" meaning cat.
"Douche" meaning to shower.

This, as an aside, was a funny email to write. Apologies for any 
offended, but I use slang/swear words to make a serious point, and 
we're all mature here. I hope.


Ron

On Jan 22, 2016 12:01 PM, "Ron Blechner" > wrote:


Sargon,

You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a
word means. it's the nature of language. Logic often has no
bearing on it.

In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and
aptly may describe a color, it's still inappropriate and
offensive in most human contexts nowadays.

When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get
to decide the proper use of that word is... that group of people.

...

As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of
support for changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think
perhaps the smart thing for those of us concerned with not using
the word is to educate. At the same time, I fully respect callers
choosing to use their own replacements.

Ron Blechner

On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM, mailto:sargo...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite
widespread ignorance of its racist etymology (such as the
very real problem with the verb "gyp"), then the inverse must
be true: it is fair to exonerate a word despite widespread
ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly). That
a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it
doesn't belong is irrelevant. If two separate
meanings/derivations converge to an identically spelled
modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when used in
its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us
truly abide by what you claim to support: its current use
*is* relevant.


On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers
mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:


Martha,

Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of
years ago, would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know
that? Or, do you think 99.9%+ of dancers associate "gypsy"
the dance move with the slang for wandering people?

Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.

Ron

On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers"
mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:

As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even
considered impolite but only depending on context. The
nickname for Richard, for example. Lots of men proudly
use that as their name, but it’s also a really offensive
term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it
without any problem in the context of someone with that
as their name. (Note the use of the plural for the
generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for years,
unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of
started happening). If our word actually came down from
Welsh, and has no relationship to the Romani whatsoever,
then it would seem even more reason to recognize that it
is context dependent and completely divorced from the
pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in
other countries.
Martha


On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers
mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:

I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Aahz Maruch via Callers]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, via Callers wrote:
>
> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread
> ignorance of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem
> with the verb "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to
> exonerate a word despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist
> etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a word falsely gets attributed to
> a category in which it doesn't belong is irrelevant. If two separate
> meanings/derivations converge to an identically spelled modern word,
> I don't believe the innocent word (when used in its original context)
> deserves to be written off. Let us truly abide by what you claim to
> support: its current use *is* relevant.

Let me know the next time you use "gay" to mean something roughly similar
to "happy" or "joyful", but for which there is no direct substitute.
Despite my support for queer rights (given that two of my partners are
bisexual, among other reasons), that's the one real loss I still feel.
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

If half of a group of people say it's a slur, and half say it's not, do we
ignore the half that say it's a slur? No.

Regardless, this discussion has been had before. International Roma bodies
view it as a slur.

But also, the two are not mutually exclusive. People might use "redneck" as
a term of pride, but it may be a slur coming from a city dweller. Or the
n-word.
On Jan 22, 2016 12:22 PM, "Janet Bertog"  wrote:

> But even the Roma cannot agree on whether the word is offensive.  There
> are some who do find it offensive and others who proudly embrace it.
>
> Regarding the question yesterday about Flowers of Edinburgh, I cannot find
> the reference again, maybe I was imagining things, or associating the
> Scottish fiddle tune with the dance in Cecil Sharp's books.  But I was
> certain that I read that it was a Scottish handkerchief dance.  Cuckolds
> All Awry is most definitely from the 1500s and has the gipsy move in it,
> though it is uncertain whether it was actually called that at the time.
>  (Cuckold All Awry is called Hey Boys, Up We Go in Cecil Sharp's 1909 book
> for unknown reasons, but possibly because Cuckolds was considered a
> demeaning term, or possibly because he misunderstood and thought the two
> titles were interchangeabble, even though Hey Boys, Up We Go is a very
> different dance in Playford's Dancing Master.  I will keep researching as
> time permits, but I have other things to do (though less today since my
> dance weekend was cancelled due to the blizzard :( ).
>
> I will also summarize what I heard from Carol, though I thought we were
> having a conversation but did not hear back from her.
>
> Someone mentioned that Eden from Notorious is a Roma, has anyone asked her
> opinion?  I don't talk to her, so I haven't asked her.  I suppose I could
> though.
>
>
> Janet
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> My point was that some words are offensive enough where context is *not*
>> relevant.
>>
>> I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make
>> it a double entendre. Etc.
>>
>> And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is
>> up to that group.
>> On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body
>>> parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not
>>> for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly
>>> acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to
>>> your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others
>>> that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant.
>>> We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent
>>> meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend
>>> everyone.
>>> Martha
>>>
>>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
>>> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
>>> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
>>> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
>>> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
>>> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
>>> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
>>> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
>>> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Martha,
>>>
>>> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
>>> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
>>> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
>>> people?
>>>
>>> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
 As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
 impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
 example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
 offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
 any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
 use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
 years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
 happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
 relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
 to recognize that it is context 

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Janet Bertog via Callers]

But even the Roma cannot agree on whether the word is offensive.  There are
some who do find it offensive and others who proudly embrace it.

Regarding the question yesterday about Flowers of Edinburgh, I cannot find
the reference again, maybe I was imagining things, or associating the
Scottish fiddle tune with the dance in Cecil Sharp's books.  But I was
certain that I read that it was a Scottish handkerchief dance.  Cuckolds
All Awry is most definitely from the 1500s and has the gipsy move in it,
though it is uncertain whether it was actually called that at the time.
 (Cuckold All Awry is called Hey Boys, Up We Go in Cecil Sharp's 1909 book
for unknown reasons, but possibly because Cuckolds was considered a
demeaning term, or possibly because he misunderstood and thought the two
titles were interchangeabble, even though Hey Boys, Up We Go is a very
different dance in Playford's Dancing Master.  I will keep researching as
time permits, but I have other things to do (though less today since my
dance weekend was cancelled due to the blizzard :( ).

I will also summarize what I heard from Carol, though I thought we were
having a conversation but did not hear back from her.

Someone mentioned that Eden from Notorious is a Roma, has anyone asked her
opinion?  I don't talk to her, so I haven't asked her.  I suppose I could
though.


Janet

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> My point was that some words are offensive enough where context is *not*
> relevant.
>
> I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make
> it a double entendre. Etc.
>
> And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is
> up to that group.
> On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body
>> parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not
>> for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly
>> acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to
>> your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others
>> that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant.
>> We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent
>> meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend
>> everyone.
>> Martha
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
>> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
>> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
>> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
>> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
>> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
>> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
>> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
>> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> Martha,
>>
>> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
>> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
>> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
>> people?
>>
>> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>>
>> Ron
>> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
>>> impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
>>> example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
>>> offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
>>> any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
>>> use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
>>> years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
>>> happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
>>> relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
>>> to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
>>> pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>>> Martha
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have
>>> several unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani
>>> have claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be
>>> used, in any context, in any language.  More about why she herself u

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

"Dick" is a preferred name of your friend.
"Gypsy" is a slur to the Roma.

Do you get the difference?
On Jan 22, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> And I don’t ban those words from my conversation if they are appropriate
> and in context. My daughter raises chickens. We talk about the cocks and
> the hens. In the lab the carboys have stopcocks on them. I have friends
> called Dick and I use their right name. Context is important, though if I
> were in the presence of an English language learner I might be careful
> assuming my listeners were not as familiar with different words. But that
> is also context.
> Martha
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Ron Blechner  wrote:
>
> It also means that I refrain from the following word uses:
>
> "Gay" meaning happy.
> "Cock" meaning rooster.
> "Pussy" meaning cat.
> "Douche" meaning to shower.
>
> This, as an aside, was a funny email to write. Apologies for any offended,
> but I use slang/swear words to make a serious point, and we're all mature
> here. I hope.
>
> Ron
> On Jan 22, 2016 12:01 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:
>
>> Sargon,
>>
>> You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a word means.
>> it's the nature of language. Logic often has no bearing on it.
>>
>> In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and aptly may
>> describe a color, it's still inappropriate and offensive in most human
>> contexts nowadays.
>>
>> When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get to
>> decide the proper use of that word is... that group of people.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of support for
>> changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think perhaps the smart thing
>> for those of us concerned with not using the word is to educate. At the
>> same time, I fully respect callers choosing to use their own replacements.
>>
>> Ron Blechner
>> On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM,  wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
>>> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
>>> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
>>> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
>>> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
>>> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
>>> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
>>> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
>>> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Martha,
>>>
>>> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
>>> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
>>> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
>>> people?
>>>
>>> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
 As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
 impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
 example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
 offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
 any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
 use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
 years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
 happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
 relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
 to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
 pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
 Martha

 On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
 callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

 I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have
 several unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani
 have claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be
 used, in any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the
 word later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a
 capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the
 ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.

 We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in
 1909 when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909
 book originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.
 We do not know if they originally used 

Re: [Callers] That g word

[via Callers]

I agree with you completely that marginalized communities are indeed the 
gatekeepers of the language used to describe themselves. But that right ends at 
the limits of words that do not involve their community. Should a term like 
gypsy originate, evolve, and operate in a linguistic universe wholly separate 
from anything to do with Romani people (as the Welsh hypothetical suggests), 
then it is a legitimate usage. Its connection becomes unfairly imposed, not 
inherent to the word. Negro is not analogous because it means nothing in 
English other than its usage to describe a race of people, and at a time when 
that community was treated horribly. As I alluded to in a previous email, it 
would be unreasonable to say we should avoid using the phrase "chink in the 
armor" simply because an identically spelled, identically sounding word has 
been used pejoratively. Your reasoning suggests I should stop using that word 
too. If not, explain how it's different. If you think I should stop using that 
word simply because of incidental similarity, then I believe we are at an 
impasse. 


> On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:01, Ron Blechner  wrote:
> 
> Sargon,
> 
> You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a word means. 
> it's the nature of language. Logic often has no bearing on it.
> 
> In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and aptly may 
> describe a color, it's still inappropriate and offensive in most human 
> contexts nowadays.
> 
> When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get to decide 
> the proper use of that word is... that group of people.
> 
> ...
> 
> As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of support for 
> changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think perhaps the smart thing for 
> those of us concerned with not using the word is to educate. At the same 
> time, I fully respect callers choosing to use their own replacements.
> 
> Ron Blechner
> 
>> On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM,  wrote:
>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance of 
>> its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb "gyp"), 
>> then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word despite 
>> widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a 
>> word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't belong is 
>> irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an identically 
>> spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when used in its 
>> original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly abide by what you 
>> claim to support: its current use *is* relevant. 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Martha,
>>> 
>>> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago, 
>>> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+ 
>>> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering 
>>> people?
>>> 
>>> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>>> 
>>> Ron
>>> 
 On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" 
  wrote:
 As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered 
 impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for 
 example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a 
 really offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it 
 without any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. 
 (Note the use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve 
 done for years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of 
 started happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no 
 relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason 
 to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the 
 pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
 Martha
 
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have several 
> unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have 
> claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, 
> in any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the 
> word later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of 
> a capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the 
> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different 
> meaning.  
> 
> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909 
> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 
> book originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland. 
>  We do not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Martha Wild via Callers]

And I don’t ban those words from my conversation if they are appropriate and in 
context. My daughter raises chickens. We talk about the cocks and the hens. In 
the lab the carboys have stopcocks on them. I have friends called Dick and I 
use their right name. Context is important, though if I were in the presence of 
an English language learner I might be careful assuming my listeners were not 
as familiar with different words. But that is also context. 
Martha

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Ron Blechner  wrote:
> 
> It also means that I refrain from the following word uses:
> 
> "Gay" meaning happy.
> "Cock" meaning rooster.
> "Pussy" meaning cat.
> "Douche" meaning to shower.
> 
> This, as an aside, was a funny email to write. Apologies for any offended, 
> but I use slang/swear words to make a serious point, and we're all mature 
> here. I hope.
> 
> Ron
> 
> On Jan 22, 2016 12:01 PM, "Ron Blechner"  > wrote:
> Sargon,
> 
> You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a word means. 
> it's the nature of language. Logic often has no bearing on it.
> 
> In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and aptly may 
> describe a color, it's still inappropriate and offensive in most human 
> contexts nowadays.
> 
> When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get to decide 
> the proper use of that word is... that group of people.
> 
> ...
> 
> As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of support for 
> changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think perhaps the smart thing for 
> those of us concerned with not using the word is to educate. At the same 
> time, I fully respect callers choosing to use their own replacements.
> 
> Ron Blechner
> 
> On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM, mailto:sargo...@gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance of 
> its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb "gyp"), 
> then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word despite 
> widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a 
> word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't belong is 
> irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an identically 
> spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when used in its 
> original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly abide by what you 
> claim to support: its current use *is* relevant. 
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers 
> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Martha,
>> 
>> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago, would 
>> you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+ of 
>> dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering people?
>> 
>> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" 
>> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
>> wrote:
>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered impolite 
>> but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for example. Lots 
>> of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really offensive 
>> term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without any problem 
>> in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the use of the 
>> plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for years, unhappy 
>> with he/him for that term and that just sort of started happening). If our 
>> word actually came down from Welsh, and has no relationship to the Romani 
>> whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason to recognize that it is 
>> context dependent and completely divorced from the pejorative use of the 
>> unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>> Martha
>> 
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers 
>>> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have several 
>>> unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have 
>>> claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in 
>>> any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the word 
>>> later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a 
>>> capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the 
>>> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.  
>>> 
>>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909 
>>> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 book 
>>> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.  We do 
>>> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we 
>>> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic 
>>> language) - gaze or glance.  
>>> 
>>> 

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

My point was that some words are offensive enough where context is *not*
relevant.

I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make
it a double entendre. Etc.

And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is
up to that group.
On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body
> parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not
> for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly
> acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to
> your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others
> that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant.
> We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent
> meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend
> everyone.
> Martha
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Martha,
>
> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
> people?
>
> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>
> Ron
> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
>> impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
>> example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
>> offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
>> any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
>> use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
>> years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
>> happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
>> relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
>> to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
>> pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>> Martha
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have several
>> unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have
>> claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in
>> any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the word
>> later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a
>> capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the
>> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
>>
>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909
>> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 book
>> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.  We do
>> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we
>> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic
>> language) - gaze or glance.
>>
>> So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved.  But if you
>> feel that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there
>> are a lot of other words you should stop using as well.
>>
>> Janet
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing.
>>>
>>> Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or "Gentlemen,"
>>> because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of being told
>>> we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.
>>>
>>> But, more recently I was approached by a man who felt "Ladies," and
>>> "Gents" were roles anyone could play whereas "Men" and "Women" really did
>>> refer to what was between our legs, and made it more uncomfortable to
>>> switch roles. Also, even thoug

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Martha Wild via Callers]

My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body parts 
that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not for use 
in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly acceptable words 
if you say them in a different context - when talking to your cat, for example, 
or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others that I won’t put in here but 
know about. So context is extremely relevant. We don’t ban those words from our 
usual conversation with their innocent meanings just because they can also be 
used in nasty contexts and offend everyone.
Martha

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargo...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance of 
> its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb "gyp"), 
> then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word despite 
> widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a 
> word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't belong is 
> irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an identically 
> spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when used in its 
> original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly abide by what you 
> claim to support: its current use *is* relevant. 
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers 
> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Martha,
>> 
>> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago, would 
>> you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+ of 
>> dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering people?
>> 
>> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" 
>> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
>> wrote:
>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered impolite 
>> but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for example. Lots 
>> of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really offensive 
>> term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without any problem 
>> in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the use of the 
>> plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for years, unhappy 
>> with he/him for that term and that just sort of started happening). If our 
>> word actually came down from Welsh, and has no relationship to the Romani 
>> whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason to recognize that it is 
>> context dependent and completely divorced from the pejorative use of the 
>> unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>> Martha
>> 
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers 
>>> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have several 
>>> unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have 
>>> claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in 
>>> any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the word 
>>> later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a 
>>> capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the 
>>> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.  
>>> 
>>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909 
>>> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 book 
>>> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.  We do 
>>> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we 
>>> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic 
>>> language) - gaze or glance.  
>>> 
>>> So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved.  But if you feel 
>>> that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there are a 
>>> lot of other words you should stop using as well.  
>>> 
>>> Janet
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers 
>>> mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing.
>>> 
>>> Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or "Gentlemen," because 
>>> they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of being told we live 
>>> in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.
>>> 
>>> But, more recently I was approached by a man who felt "Ladies," and "Gents" 
>>> were roles anyone could play whereas "Men" and "Women" really did refer to 
>>> what was between our legs, and made it more uncomfortable to switch roles. 
>>> Also, even though we live in a severely class society, the words "Ladies" 
>>> and "Gents" don't seem to carry that weight any more.
>>> 
>>> Then again, in Berkeley we've switched to "gender free," and use "Ravens" 
>>> and "Larks" now.
>>> 
>>> This is all to s

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

It also means that I refrain from the following word uses:

"Gay" meaning happy.
"Cock" meaning rooster.
"Pussy" meaning cat.
"Douche" meaning to shower.

This, as an aside, was a funny email to write. Apologies for any offended,
but I use slang/swear words to make a serious point, and we're all mature
here. I hope.

Ron
On Jan 22, 2016 12:01 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Sargon,
>
> You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a word means.
> it's the nature of language. Logic often has no bearing on it.
>
> In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and aptly may
> describe a color, it's still inappropriate and offensive in most human
> contexts nowadays.
>
> When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get to decide
> the proper use of that word is... that group of people.
>
> ...
>
> As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of support for
> changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think perhaps the smart thing
> for those of us concerned with not using the word is to educate. At the
> same time, I fully respect callers choosing to use their own replacements.
>
> Ron Blechner
> On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM,  wrote:
>
>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
>> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
>> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
>> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
>> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
>> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
>> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
>> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
>> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> Martha,
>>
>> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
>> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
>> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
>> people?
>>
>> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>>
>> Ron
>> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
>>> impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
>>> example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
>>> offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
>>> any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
>>> use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
>>> years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
>>> happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
>>> relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
>>> to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
>>> pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>>> Martha
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have
>>> several unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani
>>> have claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be
>>> used, in any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the
>>> word later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a
>>> capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the
>>> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
>>>
>>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909
>>> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 book
>>> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.  We do
>>> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we
>>> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic
>>> language) - gaze or glance.
>>>
>>> So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved.  But if you
>>> feel that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there
>>> are a lot of other words you should stop using as well.
>>>
>>> Janet
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
 What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing.

 Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or "Gentlemen,"
 because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of being told
 we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.

 But, more recently I was approached 

Re: [Callers] That g word

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Sargon,

You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a word means.
it's the nature of language. Logic often has no bearing on it.

In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and aptly may
describe a color, it's still inappropriate and offensive in most human
contexts nowadays.

When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get to decide
the proper use of that word is... that group of people.

...

As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of support for
changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think perhaps the smart thing
for those of us concerned with not using the word is to educate. At the
same time, I fully respect callers choosing to use their own replacements.

Ron Blechner
On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM,  wrote:

> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Martha,
>
> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
> people?
>
> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>
> Ron
> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
>> impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
>> example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
>> offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
>> any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
>> use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
>> years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
>> happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
>> relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
>> to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
>> pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>> Martha
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have several
>> unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have
>> claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in
>> any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the word
>> later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a
>> capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the
>> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
>>
>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909
>> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 book
>> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.  We do
>> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we
>> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic
>> language) - gaze or glance.
>>
>> So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved.  But if you
>> feel that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there
>> are a lot of other words you should stop using as well.
>>
>> Janet
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing.
>>>
>>> Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or "Gentlemen,"
>>> because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of being told
>>> we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.
>>>
>>> But, more recently I was approached by a man who felt "Ladies," and
>>> "Gents" were roles anyone could play whereas "Men" and "Women" really did
>>> refer to what was between our legs, and made it more uncomfortable to
>>> switch roles. Also, even though we live in a severely class society, the
>>> words "Ladies" and "Gents" don't seem to carry that weight any more.
>>>
>>> Then again, in Berkeley we've switched to "gender free," and use
>>> "Ravens" and "Larks" now.
>>>
>>> This is all to say, those who come to t

Re: [Callers] That g word

[via Callers]

I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance of its 
racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb "gyp"), then the 
inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word despite widespread 
ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a word falsely 
gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't belong is irrelevant. If two 
separate meanings/derivations converge to an identically spelled modern word, I 
don't believe the innocent word (when used in its original context) deserves to 
be written off. Let us truly abide by what you claim to support: its current 
use *is* relevant. 


> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Martha,
> 
> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago, would 
> you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+ of 
> dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering people?
> 
> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
> 
> Ron
> 
>> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" 
>>  wrote:
>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered impolite 
>> but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for example. Lots 
>> of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really offensive 
>> term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without any problem 
>> in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the use of the 
>> plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for years, unhappy 
>> with he/him for that term and that just sort of started happening). If our 
>> word actually came down from Welsh, and has no relationship to the Romani 
>> whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason to recognize that it is 
>> context dependent and completely divorced from the pejorative use of the 
>> unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>> Martha
>> 
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have several 
>>> unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have 
>>> claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in 
>>> any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the word 
>>> later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a 
>>> capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the 
>>> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.  
>>> 
>>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909 
>>> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 book 
>>> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.  We do 
>>> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we 
>>> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic 
>>> language) - gaze or glance.  
>>> 
>>> So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved.  But if you feel 
>>> that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there are a 
>>> lot of other words you should stop using as well.  
>>> 
>>> Janet
>>> 
 On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers 
  wrote:
 What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing.
 
 Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or "Gentlemen," 
 because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of being told 
 we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.
 
 But, more recently I was approached by a man who felt "Ladies," and 
 "Gents" were roles anyone could play whereas "Men" and "Women" really did 
 refer to what was between our legs, and made it more uncomfortable to 
 switch roles. Also, even though we live in a severely class society, the 
 words "Ladies" and "Gents" don't seem to carry that weight any more.
 
 Then again, in Berkeley we've switched to "gender free," and use "Ravens" 
 and "Larks" now.
 
 This is all to say, those who come to the dance have many differing 
 associations with words. And sometimes it is important that we listen.
 
 Take "He" and "She." We all know that "He" has been the generic pronoun 
 where "She" refers only to women. Since we live in a society dominated by 
 the patriarchal Christian religion, it's clear that using "He" and "Him" 
 generically supports this concept. Many of us, in the sixties and 
 seventies counteracted this male dominance by using "She" and "Her" as the 
 generic pronoun. It was startling how different it feels to switch to 
 those. There are now corners pushing to just use "They" and "Them" for 
 everyone, like we use "you" for both plural and singular. Maybe it will 
 take hold...
 
 But all this is to say, these little words do have an affect on how we 
>