Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

I totally agree w/ Chrissy, John, & Hilton, Please delete everything that has already been posted which is not absolutely essential to your new post. Thank you everyone, Paul

Re: [Callers] mentorship

Agree with Barb.  Callers who are nationally known sometimes tend to come to dances expecting that everyone's experienced but in reality there are a fair amount of new dancers there.  Glen Echo is a place that is popular and does tend to attract a lot of experienced dancers, but also a place

Re: [Callers] mentorship

disagree. one thing i learned from my university years (besides some things about plants) was that it was CRITICAL to say things in various ways. i taught science majors one semester, non-science majors the next. non-majors were the most fun. you had to realize that every single person in

Re: [Callers] mentorship

Perry wrote: " I've danced to a few nationally-known callers who I don't think are very good at all."  Without mentioning names, what did or didn't these nationally known callers do to make you feel they were not good??? Perry wrote: "... most callers, whether they stick to local areas or

Re: [Callers] mentorship

Ron, You pose a real excellent question.  WHAT makes a "good" caller?  Now if you were to ask the dancers on the floor who their favorite callers are, they generally list popular, well-known callers who travel a lot.  But does this mean that they are the "best"?  Or that other lesser-known

Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

here here!!! Laurie --- On Thu, 5/10/12, Hilton Baxter wrote: > From: Hilton Baxter > Date: Thursday, May 10, 2012, 1:49 PM > I agree with the comments of John > Sweeney (copied below - after deleting unneeded material). > > Hilton Baxter >

Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

I agree with the comments of John Sweeney (copied below - after deleting unneeded material). Hilton Baxter 607 651-8768 > I would rather have a single list. > > I would also love to cut down on volume. > But not by reducing the number of posts. > By, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, reducing the SIZE

Re: [Callers] Don't teach proper formation unless you need it

Jeff Kaufman wrote: > Chrissy Fowler wrote: > > > > I am curious about the phenomenon that Jeff refers to in this > > sentence. I've never danced at, or called, or even heard about a > > dance where the caller could "just wait for people to get into > > position." > > Sorry, you're right. I

Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

AMEN to what John said below. Especially the last sentence. If you are a person who habitually sends the entire history at the end of your SW posts, and there's no compelling reason for you to include all those lines, PLEASE consider taking a few seconds to only include the relevant parts -

Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Lindsay Morris wrote: > I'd vote for one list. Easy enough to search for the title if a dance there. Only if you know the title. Wouldn't work if you just want to browse for dances.

Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Chris Weiler (home) wrote: > So I would like to know is if there are many people who would _not_ > subscribe to a choreography list? One advantage of a separate list is it would be easier if one is searching the archives for dances.

Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

Too much volume! The discussions are mostly useful to me although I don't participate a lot. But so much traffic lately is just overwhelming. Thanks! On May 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Chris Weiler (home) wrote: Hello SW callers, I finally caught up on my e-mail and have read the discussion

Re: [Callers] New choreo list / traffic volume

I would rather have a single list. I would also love to cut down on volume. But not by reducing the number of posts. By, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, reducing the SIZE of them. Too many people just do a "Reply", type what they want, and then press "Send". There is one other crucial step. Before