Re: [Callers] [Organizers] contra dance gypsy

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Adam,

I guess Google is Too Hard for some?

Re: evocative nature of terms.
"Box the gnat", "hey", "chain", etc all aren't evocative, either. Swing may
be. I love how "right shoulder round" is self explanatory.

I want to underline the excellent point you made about rhyming. "Oh, we
can't SAY that word, but we'll think it. Wink."

Best,
Ron

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 9:57 AM Adam Carlson  wrote:

> Ron,
>
> I was halfway through a long, researched response explaining why it is a
> slur, why just because a particular caller hasn't been personally
> confronted at one of their dances they shouldn't assume it's not, and why
> the origins of the term, while pertinent are not the whole story on how we
> should approach it today when Isaac, in one short paragraph, provided a
> much more effective response than mine would ever be. In researching I was
> pleasantly surprised by number of good references in the wikipedia article
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Romani_people. I found it by
> googling "gypsy usage as a slur" which also turned up a lot of useful
> material.
>
> I'd love to see your article when you're done.
>
> BTW, I'm really saddened that the term "right shoulder round" has become
> the standard replacement for gypsy. It's about as evocative as "modified
> ballroom position paired rotation" is for swing and takes too long to say.
> I really liked pixie when it was popular, just because I like the word, and
> I like two-eye turn, though it doesn't make much sense unless you know what
> a two-hand turn is, which many contra dancers don't these days. (Pixie
> doesn't make any sense, but it doesn't purport to.) I've never tried
> Look-See, which is appealing, but maybe too cute by half, and I fear won't
> come across well on PAs. Though pixie and look-see are both phonetic
> references back to gypsy. They just rhyme, so it's a way of referring back
> to the tainted word. It'd be like if someone who was racist but didn't want
> to offend people with the N word went around talking about "those jiggers".
>
> Cheers,
> Adam
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:56 AM Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I am working on a shared document, if only because it takes a lot of time
>> and work to educate people and I'd like a resource with lots of links that
>> people can easily share. If you'd like to positively contribute, please
>> email me directly contraron at gmail dot com.
>>
>> It's the 21st century. We're smart people who love history, right?
>>
>> "G*psy" has its etymology back to mistaking olive-skinned peoples from
>> India and Persia for Egyptians. It's _always_ been a racial term, and it's
>> always been a slang that was put on Romany. While some groups have
>> reclaimed the term, this is not the majority, and, like f*ggot to LGBTQ
>> people, or the N word to Africans and African Americans, the word simply
>> isn't white people's word, even if someone has "given you permission" to
>> use it.
>>
>> When Cecil Sharp introduced it, so far research I've seen shows he didn't
>> use "gip" it in the racial sense. It was a Morris dance word that had no
>> roots in Romance languages. Sometime after in the 20th century, probably
>> because of homonym confusion, other callers and dancers assumed it was
>> "g*psy".
>>
>> Romancing nomadicism:
>> So, y'all have Jewish friends, right?
>> You all know the diaspora, and thousands of years of nomadicism by Jews
>> was _forced_, right?
>> You know that it was forced because of racism and anti-Semitism, and Jews
>> have suffered greatly, culminating in the Holocaust, right?
>>
>> It's nearly identical to Romany oppression. Their nomadicism has been
>> forced. They have the same myths, same racist stereotypes of baby stealing
>> and dark magic. They've been denied citizenship and forced to relocate
>> century after century in Europe. They suffered over a million deaths in the
>> Holocaust.
>>
>> Why, then, would we romanticize their forced nomadicism?
>>
>> In dance,
>> Ron Blechner
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019, 9:16 AM Isaac Banner via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Jeff,
>>>
>>> Not **us** non-roma folk, thank you. My family on my mother's side were
>>> a part of the culture and none of us appreciate the folks telling us not to
>>> worry and that we don't need to be offended.
>>>
>>> Isaav
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019, 8:1

Re: [Callers] [Organizers] contra dance gypsy

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I am working on a shared document, if only because it takes a lot of time
and work to educate people and I'd like a resource with lots of links that
people can easily share. If you'd like to positively contribute, please
email me directly contraron at gmail dot com.

It's the 21st century. We're smart people who love history, right?

"G*psy" has its etymology back to mistaking olive-skinned peoples from
India and Persia for Egyptians. It's _always_ been a racial term, and it's
always been a slang that was put on Romany. While some groups have
reclaimed the term, this is not the majority, and, like f*ggot to LGBTQ
people, or the N word to Africans and African Americans, the word simply
isn't white people's word, even if someone has "given you permission" to
use it.

When Cecil Sharp introduced it, so far research I've seen shows he didn't
use "gip" it in the racial sense. It was a Morris dance word that had no
roots in Romance languages. Sometime after in the 20th century, probably
because of homonym confusion, other callers and dancers assumed it was
"g*psy".

Romancing nomadicism:
So, y'all have Jewish friends, right?
You all know the diaspora, and thousands of years of nomadicism by Jews was
_forced_, right?
You know that it was forced because of racism and anti-Semitism, and Jews
have suffered greatly, culminating in the Holocaust, right?

It's nearly identical to Romany oppression. Their nomadicism has been
forced. They have the same myths, same racist stereotypes of baby stealing
and dark magic. They've been denied citizenship and forced to relocate
century after century in Europe. They suffered over a million deaths in the
Holocaust.

Why, then, would we romanticize their forced nomadicism?

In dance,
Ron Blechner


On Tue, Oct 8, 2019, 9:16 AM Isaac Banner via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hey Jeff,
>
> Not **us** non-roma folk, thank you. My family on my mother's side were a
> part of the culture and none of us appreciate the folks telling us not to
> worry and that we don't need to be offended.
>
> Isaav
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019, 8:10 AM Jeffrey Spero via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> But Isaac… isn’t that what people on BOTH sides of the issue are doing?
>> There are VERY few Roma in the contra community, and we’ve heard from very
>> few overall on this issue.  Mostly it’s just us non-Roma folk arguing
>> amongst ourselves about what WE perceive how a majority of the Roma people
>> feel about this.  And that does apply to people who are both for and
>> against using the term “gypsy” to describe a contradance move.  Aren’t we
>> ALL saying what is right or wrong for people who are from another heritage?
>>
>> And now I am bowing out of this controversy as it seems never-ending and
>> very divisive.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 8, 2019, at 5:57 AM, Isaac Banner via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey John,
>> >
>> > If the N word was also a move that somehow wasn't connected to the
>> slur, you wouldn't dare argue that it's different or that you should get to
>> call it, so drop the argument please. Just because you don't think I should
>> be offended about the word and how it reflects on my heritage doesn't mean
>> you get to dictate whether I actually am. I would ask you not to decide for
>> others how they ought to experience and respect their racial identity,
>> thanks.
>> >
>> > Isaac
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

[Callers] New circulate dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I'm pretty behind publishing a year or so of dances, but wanted to check in
since this one may be done?

I riffed off Nils' Spring Fever, swapping petronellas for the circulate,
then changed the simple B2 to fit the ending in a wave. Test driven Sunday
in Greenfield, MA.

Going Out For Bao
Ron T Blechner
D.I., start in long waves with Larks facing out, Ravens facing in

A1. Bal Wave, Ravens X, Larks Loop R (4,4)
   Bal Wave, Larks X, Ravens Loop R (4,4)
A2. N B+S (4,12)
B1. Larks Lead 1/2 Hey, Ravens Ricochet, Partner Swing (16)
B2. Pass Thru Straight Across (4ish) (face P)
   P Alle L 1x (6ish)
   Larks Pull By R (2ish)
   N Alle L 1 + 1/4 (6ish) (RH to New N to form waves)
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

[Callers] Fwd: a favor email

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Sent for Sue Songer and Kristen Falk, who aren't on Shared Weight.
You can reply here and I'll make sure they get replies, or you can reach
out directly!
--

David Kaynor project

With the assistance of others, Sue Songer is compiling a comprehensive book
on David's many and varied contributions to our dance community. The book
will include David’s original tunes, the dances he has choreographed, his
artwork, and stories by and about him. We have a good handle on the music
but are not sure that we have a complete collection of David's dances, many
of which he has not written down. Kristen "Gumby" Falk is assisting with
the dance section of the book. Here is a list of the titles of dances we
have identified thus far. If you have additional dances that David has
choreographed in your collection, would you please either photograph your
cards and/or send the text of the dances to Kristen (krfal...@hotmail.com)
and Sue (son...@portcoll.com)?

Thank you in advance for your help on this project! (Request for David
stories will be coming later on although you can send to Sue now if you
like.)

Sue Songer and Kristen Falk


titles of david kaynors dances 8.24.2019 krf.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Mad Robin + Lady/Raven combos

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Thanks, folks! Will help with an experiment. Also, some good choices that I
should add to my box. :)

Ron

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 2:56 PM Jim Hemphill via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> *Mad about You  * improper   by Jim Hemphill
>
> A1 Mad robin (clockwise)
>  Ladies pass left 1/2 hey, gents ricochet
> A2 Partner Gypsy and swing
> B1 Gents Pass left, 1/2 hey, Ladies ricochet
>  Neighbor swing
> B2Right Left thru
>  Mad robin (counterclockwise)
>
> The progression occurs at the end of B2.  Ladies will be moving forward and
> to their right and gents back and to the left as they complete the mad
> robin.  Have dancers continue moving in this same direction to flow right
> into the clockwise mad robin with next neighbors.
>
> Written for my lovely wife Mariah on our 22nd anniversary.
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 1:38 PM Don Veino via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Two that immediately come to mind...
>>
>> -Don
>>
>> By left hand:
>>
>>
>> *For All, There Exists, Such That - Becket - Nicholas Rockstroh*
>> A1 (left diag.) Circle Left 3/4x, NBR Dosido/Mad Robin 1+1/4x
>>
>> A2 LDY/RVN Allemande Left 1+1/2x, PNR Star Promenade, BFWhirl
>>
>> B1 GNT/LRK by RH Revolving Door w/PNR (drop LDY/RVN 1/2 way), NBR Swing
>>
>> B2 Give & Take to LDY/RVN, PNR Swing
>>
>> By right:
>>
>> *RUTH’S (FOR) REEL – (Progressed) DI – DON VEINO 20161113*
>>
>> A1
>> LLFB
>> Mad Robin, Ladies through center first/CCW (so looking at P across)
>>
>> A2
>> LDY/RVN Chain
>> Mad Robin, LDY/RVN through center first/CCW (so looking at N across)
>> (look away from P to Shadow)
>>
>> B1
>> RT Shldr w/Shadow
>> Partner Swing
>>
>> B2
>> Circle Left 3/4, Pass Through Up/Down
>> Swing (new) Neighbor
>>
>> End effects: never really out, shadow needs you in B1 before crossing
>> over.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 1:31 PM Ron Blechner via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to hear examples of contra dances with combos of Mad Robins
>>> with Lady/Raven figures, such as:
>>>
>>> Chain
>>> Mad Robin (Counterclockwise)
>>> Ravens Alle R / DSD / Lead a hey
>>>
>>> Or especiall a Mad Robin progression to Mad Robin with a Lady/Raven role
>>> on either/both end.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ron Blechner
>>> ___
>>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>>
>> ___
>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

[Callers] Mad Robin + Lady/Raven combos

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I'd like to hear examples of contra dances with combos of Mad Robins with
Lady/Raven figures, such as:

Chain
Mad Robin (Counterclockwise)
Ravens Alle R / DSD / Lead a hey

Or especiall a Mad Robin progression to Mad Robin with a Lady/Raven role on
either/both end.

Thanks,
Ron Blechner
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Building Safe Dance Communities

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I second Emily's assessment.

In dance,

Ron Blechner

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 1:54 PM Emily Addison via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi fellow Shared Weight Callers,
>
> CDSS hosted a webchat about Building Safe Dance Communities last Thursday.
>
> Wow was it great!  The speakers were fantastic and they covered the topic
> from many different angles. While the workshop was primarily for
> organizers, I think many of you would likely find it quite interesting.
>
> You can check out the audio and slides here.
> https://www.cdss.org/resources/how-to/organizers#cdss-web-chats
>
> Emily Addison
> Writing from Ottawa, ON
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> 
> <#m_-3227928092094204608_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] New Dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Yeah, an unfortunate case of same-names.

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 1:49 PM Jack Mitchell  wrote:

> Tho I have spring fever with a different B1: Hey with hands - gents pull
> by L, P pull by R, Ravens Alle L 1x, P Sw
>
> Jack Mitchell
> Durham, NC
> On Jun 29, 2019, 2:28 AM -0400, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net>, wrote:
>
> It's basically Spring Fever, by Nils Fredland:
>
> A1 bal, petro, bal, petro
> A2 N B+S
> B1 1/2 Hey, Larks passing L, Ravens ricochet, PS
> B2 Circle L 3/4, Bal, pass thru
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 9:07 AM Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Hello all!
>
> In a scene with which I'm sure many of you are familiar, I woke up in the
> middle of the night with a tune stuck in my head, and I couldn't fall
> asleep until I'd written a dance to go with it.
>
> Let me know if someone's beat me to it:
>
> Molly Apple Pye, Becket
>
> A1: Balance Ring, Petronella
>Balance Ring, Pass through up and down
> A2: New Neighbor Balance and Swing
> B1: Gents start 3/4 Hey across (GL PR LL NR GL PR),
>Ladies Ricochet*
> B2: Partner Swing
>
> I realize the partner swing in this version is longer than standard, but
> figure since the timing can run long for a full hey with ricochet and since
> the next move is a ring balance, I don't mind giving the dancers the extra
> time to get their affairs in order. ;)
>
> *But maybe the timing works better if the Ladies dance a
> left-shoulder-round instead, to take up a bit more music? I need to
> play-test! In that case, the B's would be,
>
> B1: Gents start 3/4 Hey across (GL PR LL NR GL PR),
>Ladies Left Shoulder Round
> B2: Partner Right Shoulder Round and Swing
>
> Thanks!
> Angela
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
> ___
> List Name: Callers mailing list
> List Address: Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] New Dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

It's basically Spring Fever, by Nils Fredland:

A1 bal, petro, bal, petro
A2 N B+S
B1 1/2 Hey, Larks passing L, Ravens ricochet, PS
B2 Circle L 3/4, Bal, pass thru


On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 9:07 AM Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hello all!
>
> In a scene with which I'm sure many of you are familiar, I woke up in the
> middle of the night with a tune stuck in my head, and I couldn't fall
> asleep until I'd written a dance to go with it.
>
> Let me know if someone's beat me to it:
>
> Molly Apple Pye, Becket
>
> A1: Balance Ring, Petronella
>Balance Ring, Pass through up and down
> A2: New Neighbor Balance and Swing
> B1: Gents start 3/4 Hey across (GL PR LL NR GL PR),
>Ladies Ricochet*
> B2: Partner Swing
>
> I realize the partner swing in this version is longer than standard, but
> figure since the timing can run long for a full hey with ricochet and since
> the next move is a ring balance, I don't mind giving the dancers the extra
> time to get their affairs in order. ;)
>
> *But maybe the timing works better if the Ladies dance a
> left-shoulder-round instead, to take up a bit more music? I need to
> play-test! In that case, the B's would be,
>
> B1: Gents start 3/4 Hey across (GL PR LL NR GL PR),
>Ladies Left Shoulder Round
> B2: Partner Right Shoulder Round and Swing
>
> Thanks!
> Angela
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Dance Organiser - Gender-free

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Thanks for doing this, Colin!

On Thu, May 9, 2019, 6:35 AM Colin Hume via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I'm calling the Boston Gender-free dance on 11th June, and in preparation
> for this I've updated my Dance Organiser program so that
> when you display the dance instructions full-screen you have the option of
> converting "man" to "lark" and "lady" or "woman" to
> "raven", etc.
>
> You can download the latest version and try it out free of charge:
> http://colinhume.com/download
>
> There may be one or two quirks - I noticed that the dance title "Les
> Manches Vertes" was displayed as "Les Larkches Vertes" but I
> can live with that!  If you find more serious problems please let me know.
>
> Colin Hume
>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] easy dance to Wizard's walk ?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Any of the "march to the center and balance the wavy line of (insert role
here)" dances fit pretty well for easy Wizard's walk dances.

In dance,
Ron Blechner

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Mary Collins via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Swim at Round Pond - Stephanie Marie dup imp (2016?)
>
> A1- ones gypsy & swing
> A2- circle left 1x, N swing (end facing down ones on outside)
> B1- Down the hall, turn alone, return,
> B2- balance to N who gates ones around to new neighbor for mirror do-si-do
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:28 AM Mary Collins  wrote:
>
>> Claire (sorry for prev. misspell),
>>
>> Surprise...my notes say good old Broken Sixpence by Don Armstrong worked
>> well.
>>
>> Both have a DTH in the B1 and just fit so fluidly. Makes me smile
>> everytime.
>>
>> If you need calls for "Swim" let me know.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:08 AM Mary Collins  wrote:
>>
>>> Clare,
>>>
>>> Stephanie Marie wrote a dance Swim at Round Pond that I called and the
>>> band had Wizzard's Walk in their set. It fit so beautifully, the dancers
>>> beamed as did I. There is another too, done to it, I'll check my notes and
>>> get back to you. Both have DTH moves.
>>> Mary
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 4:36 AM Claire Takemori via Callers <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
 Does someone have dance choreography for an easy contra that goes well
 with Wizard’s walk tune?

 I know there was a “Grumpy” longways family dance written to go with it.

 Thanks !

 Claire Takemori
 SF Bay Area
 ___
 List Name:  Callers mailing list
 List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
 Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

>>>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] freedom

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Thanks.

I'm really not the person ultimately who should be listened to.
Marginalized dancers are the people we all should be listening to. Folks
who are LGBTQ, people of color, people with disabilities, Romany, etc. I've
done my homework, and I've made my choices about what to support.

Ron

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 5:14 PM Tom Hinds <twhi...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Ron I apologize for saying that.  It was not necessary.
>
> If you'll still speak to me i want you to know that Donna has said exactly
> what I was thinking.  So I would be interested in seeing what you have to
> say.
>
> Tom
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 29, 2018, at 3:01 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Really don't appreciate name calling on this list.
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 7:22 PM Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Dave!
>> I too have that reaction whenever a caller brings up controversy about
>> terminology.
>>
>> On the flip side, when an older caller tries to adapt pronouns and such
>> without making a big deal of it, it’s awesome, even when they make
>> mistakes.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 5:29 PM, Tom Hinds via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> Here was my issue, briefly :  I was told to use "walk around" when
>> calling at glen echo.  It also happens that I'm a western square caller and
>> have used "walk around your corner, see saw your taw" for decades.
>>
>> It has happened on two occasions when I have mixed up square dance calls
>> from one time period into another or from one tradition to another and have
>> confused the dancers a tad and made them think perhaps I'm an idiot.
>>
>> As far as gypsy is concerned I'd use ANY call as a substitute but not
>> walk around out of fear of saying the wrong thing by habit.  Perhaps it's
>> remote that it would happen but I'm going to avoid looking liking an idiot
>> at all costs!
>>
>> Being given that rule by the organizer made my planning for that dance a
>> nightmare.  Do I use dances without gypsies?  I mean it really through a
>> wrench into the way I usually plan because to follow their rule and protect
>> myself I'd have to eliminate far too many good dances to keep from using
>> gypsy.
>>
>> And there are more rules that I have to follow or address that I'd rather
>> not, like leaving a couple out at the top when the music ends.
>>
>> As far as being sarcastic NO I'm not that kind of person.  I simply
>> thought Ron was being a bully so I wanted to know where he stood.  There
>> are a number of us out there that associate PC with a threat to our
>> freedoms and I'm not a conservative.  Sure I can look up things on the
>> computer and you think I'm being sarcastic because I didn't, but we're
>> different.  I hate computers and only use them when I have to.   I value
>> clear communication and if you carefully read my email you'll see that's
>> what I was asking for.  On several of Ron's emails I see there are a good
>> number of dots that weren't being connected so I wondered what was going on.
>>
>> As far as my attitude at Glen Echo is concerned you are reading into it.
>> If you want to continue this perhaps just between us is the best way.  And
>> here we go, Tom is confused again.  Why are you replying for Ron?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> >
>>> ___
>>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>> ___
>>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
>> ___
>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
>> ___
>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] freedom

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Really don't appreciate name calling on this list.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 7:22 PM Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Thanks Dave!
> I too have that reaction whenever a caller brings up controversy about
> terminology.
>
> On the flip side, when an older caller tries to adapt pronouns and such
> without making a big deal of it, it’s awesome, even when they make
> mistakes.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 28, 2018, at 5:29 PM, Tom Hinds via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Here was my issue, briefly :  I was told to use "walk around" when calling
> at glen echo.  It also happens that I'm a western square caller and have
> used "walk around your corner, see saw your taw" for decades.
>
> It has happened on two occasions when I have mixed up square dance calls
> from one time period into another or from one tradition to another and have
> confused the dancers a tad and made them think perhaps I'm an idiot.
>
> As far as gypsy is concerned I'd use ANY call as a substitute but not walk
> around out of fear of saying the wrong thing by habit.  Perhaps it's remote
> that it would happen but I'm going to avoid looking liking an idiot at all
> costs!
>
> Being given that rule by the organizer made my planning for that dance a
> nightmare.  Do I use dances without gypsies?  I mean it really through a
> wrench into the way I usually plan because to follow their rule and protect
> myself I'd have to eliminate far too many good dances to keep from using
> gypsy.
>
> And there are more rules that I have to follow or address that I'd rather
> not, like leaving a couple out at the top when the music ends.
>
> As far as being sarcastic NO I'm not that kind of person.  I simply
> thought Ron was being a bully so I wanted to know where he stood.  There
> are a number of us out there that associate PC with a threat to our
> freedoms and I'm not a conservative.  Sure I can look up things on the
> computer and you think I'm being sarcastic because I didn't, but we're
> different.  I hate computers and only use them when I have to.   I value
> clear communication and if you carefully read my email you'll see that's
> what I was asking for.  On several of Ron's emails I see there are a good
> number of dots that weren't being connected so I wondered what was going on.
>
> As far as my attitude at Glen Echo is concerned you are reading into it.
> If you want to continue this perhaps just between us is the best way.  And
> here we go, Tom is confused again.  Why are you replying for Ron?
>
> Tom
>
>
> >
>> ___
>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>> ___
>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Politically Correct?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I'm going to respect Rich's request to not discuss the broader topic on
this thread anymore.

I'd be happy to continue the discussion in a separate thread or private
email.

Best regards,
Ron Blechner

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 11:07 AM Donna Hunt <dhuntdan...@aol.com> wrote:

> Ron: Would you please be more specific?  There's not enough information
> here for me to understand what you're claiming, nor to clarify it, and I
> find it frustrating and misleading in it's generality.
>
> I'm going to assume that you not only mean callers in these areas but are
> also speaking of dances in these specific areas.  New England covers
> several states and has lots of dances.  New York?  City or State?  How many
> dances in Seattle and the Bay Area?  How many is "several"?  And "these
> dances are thriving amidst a decline..."?   Without details I cannot
> support your claims.
>
> In New England, New York, Seattle, and the Bay Area, many callers have
> been examining terminology and changing. Several dance series have gone
> genderfree without being specifically chartered as LGBTQ dances. Not
> coincidentally, these dances are thriving amidst a decline of attendance of
> contra in general.
>
>
>
> Donna Hunt
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Jeffrey Spero <j...@syncopaths.com>
> Cc: callers@lists.sharedweight.net <Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Wed, Mar 28, 2018 12:47 pm
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Politically Correct?
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I think your understanding of there being "no to little movement" is
> inaccurate.
>
> In New England, New York, Seattle, and the Bay Area, many callers have
> been examining terminology and changing. Several dance series have gone
> genderfree without being specifically chartered as LGBTQ dances. Not
> coincidentally, these dances are thriving amidst a decline of attendance of
> contra in general.
>
> Many dances are also taking up safety policies before and after the #metoo
> movement, despite plenty of resistance for years of some people insisting
> that contra is a happy place where there's no harassment.
>
> So yes, you're correct that these discussions have been happening for
> years, true, but they have also been producing tangible change in many
> places.
>
> ...
>
>
> I might also like to disagree with your implication that everyone is
> responsible for "arguing about it". We callers who have swapped terms for
> g*pay, for example, have long since moved on.
>
> In the case of this original post, Rich was asking for practical advice,
> and there *was no* argument until a couple choice people started throwing
> shade at those of us who think changing the lyrics from "she was a young
> thing" to "she was a young girl" is an easy swap that doesn't diminish the
> tradition, but also reduces the objectification of women.
>
> In dance,
> Ron Blechner
>
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Politically Correct?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi Jeff,

I think your understanding of there being "no to little movement" is
inaccurate.

In New England, New York, Seattle, and the Bay Area, many callers have been
examining terminology and changing. Several dance series have gone
genderfree without being specifically chartered as LGBTQ dances. Not
coincidentally, these dances are thriving amidst a decline of attendance of
contra in general.

Many dances are also taking up safety policies before and after the #metoo
movement, despite plenty of resistance for years of some people insisting
that contra is a happy place where there's no harassment.

So yes, you're correct that these discussions have been happening for
years, true, but they have also been producing tangible change in many
places.

...


I might also like to disagree with your implication that everyone is
responsible for "arguing about it". We callers who have swapped terms for
g*pay, for example, have long since moved on.

In the case of this original post, Rich was asking for practical advice,
and there *was no* argument until a couple choice people started throwing
shade at those of us who think changing the lyrics from "she was a young
thing" to "she was a young girl" is an easy swap that doesn't diminish the
tradition, but also reduces the objectification of women.

In dance,
Ron Blechner


On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 12:32 PM Jeffrey Spero via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

>
> On Mar 28, 2018, at 8:56 AM, Maia McCormick  wrote:
>
> While Jeffrey makes a compelling point, I want to chime in with another
> thought: *that not having these discussions is just as divisive (if not
> more so) than having them*, just in ways that are harder for some sides
> of the community to see. While people make (very valid) claims that long
> discussions about terminology, altering words to singing squares, etc. are
> alienating some more established members of the community, to *not* have
> these discussions is to alienate many other folks, particularly people our
> dance scene has done less well by in the past -- young people, people of
> color, queer people, trans people... the list goes on.
>
>
> I would never suggest that these discussion not take place.  But at some
> point, the discussion must end with action either being taken - or not.
> This particular discussion has been going on for many years, with very
> little new information, with both sides feeling more polarized, and there
> being no to little movement in the community at large.  We’re beating a
> dead horse.  At what point does this become more divisive than cohesive?
> How is renewing this discussion by rehashing things that have been said
> over and over again on both sides of the issue being helpful more than
> harmful?
>
> Call it a walk around. Call it a gypsy. Call larks/ravens. Call
> gents/ladies.  Call the moves as you see fit. But let’s stop the constant
> arguing about it that has become tiresome and divisive.  Minds really
> aren’t being changed after years of rehashing the same points.
>
> And with that, I will no longer rehash MY point!
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Politically Correct?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

"Living Tradition"

Preserving tradition and being appropriate to our day and age are not
mutually exclusive.

I actually love rich traditions that we keep alive. We talk about "living"
traditions, so what do we mean by this phrase?

For something to be alive, it changes. It adapts. What it doesn't do is
stay stagnant and unchanging. The whole reason contra dancing is still
alive today is because it's alive and changing.

By insisting on holding onto traditions verbatim, we are actually doing
more to kill them than save them. Sure, we'll preserve them this way - as
one does a taxidermied animal: perfectly preserved, sitting on a shelf,
dead.

I'd prefer my traditions alive. I'd like to keep sharing them with younger
generations. That means that people like Rich are asking the right
questions. That means we need to consider that language changes and that we
need to speak in a language that reaches an audience not merely just our
own.

Hey, isn't that the whole point of being a dance caller? Being heard by
your audience?

In dance, again,
Ron Blechner

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 1:33 AM Ron Blechner  wrote:

> I want to echo the words of Alex D-L and Dave Casserly.
>
> I'm also appalled at the casual use of the n-word on this thread without
> anyone whatsoever calling it out. This is really giving me pause. :(
>
> Contra's attendance is dwindling - I hear it from every organizer I talk
> to, with a couple exceptions. I also hear about the desire to "get the
> young people to dance". Hmmm.
>
> Ron Blechner
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 11:39 AM Dave Casserly via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Rich,
>>
>> I don't think your situation here is exactly what Colin describes--
>> you're not worried about any of the particular words, as many of us are
>> regarding the word "gypsy," for instance.  The question here is whether the
>> phrase has an offensive *meaning* of "women are things," and if so, is
>> that a good reason not to use it.  Personally, I'd probably alter it or do
>> a different singing square.  I don't subscribe to the extreme position that
>> you should never sing lyrics to a folk song unless you agree with those
>> lyrics; that would make singing folk songs very difficult to do at all.
>> That said, there are some times where the meanings of lyrics are offensive
>> enough, without any redeeming qualities, that I leave a verse out or alter
>> a few words in the singing sessions that I lead.  There is nothing
>> sacrosanct about a particular set of lyrics to a folk song; people have
>> been changing them for whatever reason for generations, and will continue
>> to do so.  If future singers don't like my revisions, they can sing a
>> different version, just like I sometimes prefer to ignore Victorian-era
>> revisions to bawdier songs.
>>
>> Here, I'd lean toward not using the lyrics for three reasons: 1) they
>> imply that women are objects; 2) there's nothing redeeming or valuable
>> about them, as they're the only things sung, with no context; and 3)
>> similarly, they don't represent the meaning of the song, and when repeated
>> on their own, sort of pervert that meaning (at least going by the lyrics
>> Yoyo posted).
>>
>> I also think there are good reasons to err on the side of inclusive
>> language, particularly in our community.  Contra dancing is overwhelmingly
>> white, and for a long time, contra dance calling was dominated by men.  The
>> loudest voices on this forum are those of older white men.  Contra dancers
>> and particularly organizers are disproportionately white baby boomers.
>> We're seeing the effects of that now; dance attendance has been dwindling
>> as older dancers stop attending and aren't replaced by younger dancers.  If
>> we want our dance form to continue to thrive, when there's a question on
>> which there's a generational divide (as you, in my view correctly, note
>> here), I would err toward using the language less likely to turn off our
>> younger generations, which are also our most diverse generations.  This
>> isn't an issue where changing the lyrics is going to bother people-- very
>> few would know the original lyrics well enough to notice-- and certainly
>> nobody would know if you selected a different singing square instead.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> --
>> David Casserly
>> (cell) 781 258-2761
>> ___
>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Politically Correct?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I want to echo the words of Alex D-L and Dave Casserly.

I'm also appalled at the casual use of the n-word on this thread without
anyone whatsoever calling it out. This is really giving me pause. :(

Contra's attendance is dwindling - I hear it from every organizer I talk
to, with a couple exceptions. I also hear about the desire to "get the
young people to dance". Hmmm.

Ron Blechner


On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 11:39 AM Dave Casserly via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Rich,
>
> I don't think your situation here is exactly what Colin describes-- you're
> not worried about any of the particular words, as many of us are regarding
> the word "gypsy," for instance.  The question here is whether the phrase
> has an offensive *meaning* of "women are things," and if so, is that a
> good reason not to use it.  Personally, I'd probably alter it or do a
> different singing square.  I don't subscribe to the extreme position that
> you should never sing lyrics to a folk song unless you agree with those
> lyrics; that would make singing folk songs very difficult to do at all.
> That said, there are some times where the meanings of lyrics are offensive
> enough, without any redeeming qualities, that I leave a verse out or alter
> a few words in the singing sessions that I lead.  There is nothing
> sacrosanct about a particular set of lyrics to a folk song; people have
> been changing them for whatever reason for generations, and will continue
> to do so.  If future singers don't like my revisions, they can sing a
> different version, just like I sometimes prefer to ignore Victorian-era
> revisions to bawdier songs.
>
> Here, I'd lean toward not using the lyrics for three reasons: 1) they
> imply that women are objects; 2) there's nothing redeeming or valuable
> about them, as they're the only things sung, with no context; and 3)
> similarly, they don't represent the meaning of the song, and when repeated
> on their own, sort of pervert that meaning (at least going by the lyrics
> Yoyo posted).
>
> I also think there are good reasons to err on the side of inclusive
> language, particularly in our community.  Contra dancing is overwhelmingly
> white, and for a long time, contra dance calling was dominated by men.  The
> loudest voices on this forum are those of older white men.  Contra dancers
> and particularly organizers are disproportionately white baby boomers.
> We're seeing the effects of that now; dance attendance has been dwindling
> as older dancers stop attending and aren't replaced by younger dancers.  If
> we want our dance form to continue to thrive, when there's a question on
> which there's a generational divide (as you, in my view correctly, note
> here), I would err toward using the language less likely to turn off our
> younger generations, which are also our most diverse generations.  This
> isn't an issue where changing the lyrics is going to bother people-- very
> few would know the original lyrics well enough to notice-- and certainly
> nobody would know if you selected a different singing square instead.
>
> -Dave
>
> --
> David Casserly
> (cell) 781 258-2761
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

[Callers] Fwd: Calling a dance 3.24

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Passing this along. If someone wants to inquire about a dance *this
Saturday* in Southwest Vermont, you can reach out directly to Liz
Albertson, email below.

In dance,
Ron Blechner

-- Forwarded message -
From: Liz Albertson 
Date: Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:22 PM
Subject: Calling a dance 3.24

... was wondering if you are available to call a beginner/family-friendly
dance on March 24th in North Bennington? Thanks, Liz Albertson
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] More substitute terms for the g-word

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I also use "face-to-face", which I learned from Eric. I've heard Steve Z-A
and Lisa G switch to these terms, at least where I've heard them call.

I also use "right shoulder round" when it's a multi-caller event and that's
what people like. We agreed to this for Flurry Festival last month, and it
worked well all weekend with thousands of dancers.

I want to also echo that anything that sounds too much like g*psy is going
to rub at least some people the wrong way. I also thought jets/rubies was a
winner, and I've acknowledged that too many people think jet is a problem.

In dance,
Ron Blechner

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 12:00 AM Eric Black via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I’m still bemused and befuddled that not so many years ago, this dance
> move was decried because of perceived forced invasion of personal space.
> People did not want to be told that they had to make eye contact when they
> were not comfortable with it, that they did not like being told to flirt
> with people they did not choose. Some of us callers told dancers that the
> eye contact was optional, that the essential part of the move was that it
> was a face-to-face do-si-do, no spins or twirls, just moving around each
> other.
>
> Now the argument against the name of the move has completely lost all
> ground on that front.
>
> For some years I’ve used “face-to-face”, teaching it with the memorable
> description “imagine a short gold chain joining the rings in your noses”.
> Eye contact is optional, and not directed; dancers will or will not make
> eye contact as they choose.  In private communication with a young caller
> who is very vocal in various discussion fora I said there was no need to
> attribute the term to me. Maybe I should have insisted.
>
> I’ve tried “right [left] shoulder round” with favorable reception.
>
> ANYway, if we’ve been making progress in removing real or perceived
> invasions of personal space, and gender issues, why regress in order to
> change the name of a dance move to make progress in removing real or
> perceived ethnic slurs?
>
> And no, “spiral” is out of the question. It’s a different move that
> includes changing the distance between the dancers, whereas the move under
> discussion does not.  English dancers know the difference.
>
> Eric Black
> e...@eric-black.com
>
>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Leading, consent in embellishments

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Thanks, Jack.

I think we, as callers, ought to acknowledge there are 2 camps of dancers,
believing either:

1. Gents/Larks role is implicitly "led", and ladies/Ravens role is
implicitly "follow" (along with all of the good comments about consent,
such as Maia's)

2. Contra is implicitly not lead/follow, and any initiating can be done
from either role.

Either way to dance can be valid. Because both are valid, then we cannot
assume either is default. Thus, technically both viewpoints are wrong.
Contra is not *implicitly* one or the other. And in fact, I dance both
styles, depending on partner. Sometimes, I feel like one style and the very
next dance I might feel like the other. Options!

Neither viewpoint is universal, nor is either rare. Thus, if we don't
acknowledge that these both exist, we are doing a huge disservice by
denying dancers to dance the way they want to dance.

Thus, as callers, the view we should treat lead/follow are *style* choices.
And while some areas may have dominant styles, it's not right to stifle
either. Thus I have several practical recommendations:

1. Refer to it as style choice.
2. Get to know what your dance partners' preference is. Don't presume one
or the other.
3. Lead/Follow are not appropriate role terms, because they dismiss people
whose style is not that.
4. Teach leading tips for both roles. Like, you have a long lines, and then
a mad robin or gents/larks allemande left? The ladies/Ravens are leading
the move by easing the gents/Larks into those moves.

In dance,
Ron Blechner


On Mon, Mar 12, 2018, 10:09 AM Jack Mitchell via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> My friend Ron Blechner wrote a wonderful piece
> 
>  a
> few years ago about "lead" and "follow" as being how one can dance
> whichever role in contra you are dancing.  I commend it to your attention.
> It's tangentially related, but that's not really what you were asking
> about.
>
> A few thoughts on that:
>
> Any lead *offered *from one dancer to another should be just that -- an
> offer -- and not a command.  It shouldn't be so forceful that it can't be
> refused.  Additionally, the person leading the flourish should be ready for
> the person to refuse (or not to respond) and be ready to continue with
> whatever courtesy turn  or completion of a swing would have normally been
> expected.
>
> I believe that the response to any lead can be one of three (or possibly
> more) response: "Yes!", "No!" and "What was that??!" and that if you get
> either of the latter two responses those should be taken as a "no" and the
> one leading that move should continue on with whatever the default version
> of that move might be.
>
> So, how do you ask that "question"?
>
>- You can just ask verbally.  A long time dancer in our local
>community will, when he encounters me in the line dancing the lady's /
>right side role, ask me "Twirling today?"  And we've been dancing in the
>same community for approaching 20 years now.  I have had others ask as we
>start swinging if I am ok being dipped.  (The answer is almost always yes,
>but occasionally it's not, and it only takes a second.)
>- A lot of swing exits / flourishes, can be "pre-led".  There is some
>part of the lead that you can start just a couple of counts before you
>would actually do it.  This can be a way of asking that question.  It also
>allows your partner to be ready to change which direction they're going,
>and generally to use much less force in the lead.  A few examples
>Starting to bring the joined hands in a swing up just a bit a few counts
>before the twirl would happen, or bringing the "gent's" left hand to the
>"lady's" shoulder, and then using very light pressure on the back of the
>"lady's" left shoulder and the front of her right to cue the twirl out of
>the swing.
>- We will frequently say in the newcomers lesson that a sign of an
>offered twirl is for the twirling person's partner to lift their joined
>hands (either the "pointy end" hands in a swing or the left hand in a
>courtesy turn, and that if one is not desiring a twirl at that particular
>moment, that one should pull that hand back down.  To that I would just add
>that as the person leading the twirl raises the appropriate hand, no
>reaction / limp arm probably is best to take as a "No" or at least as a
>"What was that??" and move along.  If it's your partner, you can always
>talk about the various flourishes and try again.
>
> So I suppose what it mostly comes down to is:
>
>1. Many leads should be able to be able to be refused / ignored
>2. If you're dancing with someone you don't know, and you want to lead
>something that is difficult to do in a refusable way (dips come to mind),
>ask.
>
>
>- Even if you encounter someone you do know if you don't have time to

Re: [Callers] Nerdy dances

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Thanks all! I've written a few down!

Ron

On Feb 12, 2018 2:34 PM, "Luke Donforth via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Thank you for the historic perspective Colin!
>
> I don't call that dance that often myself, it's rather a niche piece :-)
>
> It's an odd-ball enough dance that I use the long-lines version as a point
> of connection to the whole set. I certainly wouldn't object to a caller
> using an arm-around variant as couples; but I think taking away the ability
> for the lines to connect for the diagonal motion would add to the
> complexity.
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Colin Hume via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:51:14 -0500, Luke Donforth via Callers wrote:
>> > Thank you for the shout out to Entangled in Monte Carlo :-)
>>
>> Luke -
>>
>> I'm not likely to call contras with swing dance moves, but I noticed that
>> in typical Becket fashion yours finishes with a partner
>> swing.  It then starts again with "Long lines yearn forward on the left
>> diagonal, then Gents take new neighbor home and swing".
>>
>> Surely this is a "Give and take", which works better if you keep your arm
>> round your partner when going forward on the left
>> diagonal rather than joining hands in long lines.  That's how Larry
>> Jennings defined the figure, though many callers don't seem to
>> know that.
>>
>> Colin Hume
>>
>> Email co...@colinhume.com  Web site http://colinhume.com
>>
>> ___
>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Luke Donforth
> luke.donfo...@gmail.com 
>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] New dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Called this last night at Greenfield. It's solid. Intermediate, definitely,
with the end effects, but solid. In my box for keeps!

Ron Blechner

On Dec 18, 2017 12:31 PM, "Donna Hunt via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi:  I don't usually wake up with a dance in my brain so I'm wondering if
> it's already been written.
>
> Solistice '17 improper Donna Hunt
> Long waves with ladies facing in
>
> A1  Balance wave and Rory twirl to R to NEXT neighbor and Swing
> A2 Pass through to a wave and Balance, walk forward to next wave and
> Balance
> B1  Swing through (turn R 1/2, gents pull by)  Partner Swing
> B2  Balance ring and twirl to right,  Allem L neighbor 1 1/2 to make waves
>
> Anyone recognize this as a dance already out there?
>
> Donna Hunt
>
>
>
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

[Callers] Nerdy dances

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hey callers,

I'm looking for dances with nerdy inspirations to add a few more choices to
an upcoming session. Skill level easy through intermediate+.

This can be dances inspired by a nerdy reason (like Jurassic Redheads or
Star Trek) or some kind of nerdy-choreography.

Thanks!

Ron Blechner
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Etiquette of refusing an offer to dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

This thread is great!

I just wanted to throw out props to George Marshall who was teaching at the
end of his beginner lessons: accepting and declining and moving on with
dance requests - earlier than I can remember other callers doing it. I've
stolen my schtick directly from him.

Ron Blechner

On Dec 18, 2017 12:09 PM, "Rich Sbardella via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Mary has made some very valid points.  It would be good to emphasize that
> this is a dance "community", and that all people should be respectful of
> others.  Many dancers take a "no" as a personal rejection and perhaps even
> as disrespectful.  This tends to hurt the community as a whole and often
> leads to cliques.  My thought is that dancers should have a reason for
> saying no, but that reason need not be vocalized.
>
> As an older dancer, most of the rejections I experience are from much
> younger ladies that do not know me yet.  I tend to want to help newer
> dancers with their skills, and have made many new dance friends this way.
> I handle most rejections by remembering that many other dances seek me out
> as a partner.
>
> To summarize, two people are involved in a dance request, and the response
> should keep that in mind.
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Mary Collins via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> coming late also here, Dale, so stealing your "lesson" comments.  We
>> usually don't directly address the refusal part of the equation as we are
>> so short of dancers, it's usually exhaustion that sits us out! lol...saying
>> that...we do encourage new dancers to ask anyone (esp. those that look like
>> they know what they are doing) to dance.  Our regular dancers are always
>> eager to bring them into the experience for which I am grateful.  The "old"
>> rule used to apply and several years ago, we had a very upset dancer who
>> left and never returned because someone turned him down and then danced
>> with someone else.  This particular dancer it was found, had some mental
>> health issues, along with size and ability issues as well and took the
>> refusal very personally.
>>
>> In the CDSS callers' course we discussed this and it was mentioned that
>> saying no, needs no explanation.  Now, as a large woman (who,it has been
>> noted by another dancer as"...very light on your feet") I often get no's.
>> I try to ignore this and not take it personally, however, it often comes to
>> mind as I sit out more and more.  Age and size do matter, unfortunately.
>> As we become more inclusive in our dance culture we tend to forget those of
>> us who raised you and brought you into this wonderful world of dance and
>> community.  So if there is a kind, gentle way to remind dancers to ask
>> ANYone to dance, and to accept the invitation (if so desired) regardless of
>> dancer appearance or possible experience then I am all for it.  Please note
>> this happens to me more at festivals and dances where I am less known as
>> organizer, dancer, caller.
>>
>> Ok way to get off on a tangent but I feel it is relevant.
>>
>> Mary Collins
>>
>> “Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass ... it's about learning
>> to dance in the rain!” ~ Unknown
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> At the dances I've seen/called in and around VT, we don't address this
>>> directly (with signs or such).
>>>
>>> I've heard of the practice of sitting after declining, but I don't think
>>> it's a common practice for most folks these days. I'd say it's mostly
>>> fallen by the wayside.
>>>
>>> The one time I've seen it come up at a dance was more than a decade ago
>>> when an older male dancer castigated a young female dancer for turning him
>>> down and then dancing with someone else instead of sitting out. Several
>>> folks told her afterwards that he was rude and impertinent and she hadn't
>>> been in the wrong. I wish we'd taken a stronger line with him directly too
>>> though. I don't know if she offered an excuse or just a no, thank you.
>>>
>>> I like CD*NY's etiquette list that Alexandra linked to (
>>> http://cdny.org/what-is-contra/contra-etiquette/), especially the bit
>>> that addresses this:
>>>
>>> *You are always free to say no when someone asks you to dance.  You
>>> don’t have to give a reason; you can just say “No, thank you.” If you ask
>>> someone to dance and they say “No,” take it gracefully and move on. If
>>> someone has declined to dance with you, the etiquette in our community is
>>> not to ask that person again that same night. If they would like to dance
>>> with you, they can come ask you—it’s their turn to do the asking.*
>>>
>>> Adding that you shouldn't ask someone multiple times, but have put the
>>> ball in their court seems a polite nudge to folks on both sides
>>>
>>> Incorporating some of the other strong suggestions that have come up on
>>> this discussion, I might advocate our group putting up 

Re: [Callers] "pick her up"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Addendum:

Often accompanied by "... And whirl/reel her around" (again, both butterfly
whirl / courtesy turn / a few other moves).

(Thanks for helping me clarify!)

On Nov 22, 2017 3:21 PM, "Mac Mckeever" <mac...@ymail.com> wrote:

> I have always considered that terminology to refer to picking up someone
> as you would a hitchhiker, not physically lifting someone.  I don't see it
> as having anything to do with who is doing what work.
>
> Mac McKeever
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 22, 2017, 2:15:38 PM CST, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> A quick question:
>
> How many callers believe that one role does the majority of the work in a
> courtesy turn or a butterfly whirl? If so, can you explain how the shared
> weight that differs from an allemande?
>
> I've always been taught about shared weight being essential in all contra
> moves, and I guess I'm still surprised when I hear callers prompt "pick her
> up and take her to the other side" as if the person in lady/raven role is
> not giving any weight. (Or similar one-role-biased prompting.)
>
> Thanks,
> Ron Blechner
> ___
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

[Callers] "pick her up"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

A quick question:

How many callers believe that one role does the majority of the work in a
courtesy turn or a butterfly whirl? If so, can you explain how the shared
weight that differs from an allemande?

I've always been taught about shared weight being essential in all contra
moves, and I guess I'm still surprised when I hear callers prompt "pick her
up and take her to the other side" as if the person in lady/raven role is
not giving any weight. (Or similar one-role-biased prompting.)

Thanks,
Ron Blechner
___
List Name:  Callers mailing list
List Address:  Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/

Re: [Callers] Multiple N swings / does this dance exist?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

The biggest caution I'd say is that 2 Neighbor swing has a higher chance of
too-much-clockwise.

I saw four dances in these suggestions with 40 beats of clockwise rotation
for at least one of the roles, which is right around the threshold where
people are getting dizzy but not quite noticing it.

I've got some in my box at home - I'll try and dig some out and forward
them. I second "Cheat Lake Gypsies" - that ones in my box and a definite
good dance!

Ron Blechner


On Sep 20, 2017 1:11 PM, "Isaac Banner via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

Hi Maia,

Here's one of my own -

*Grab Bag*
Contra/Dup Imp/Easy
A1
  LLFB
  (new) neighbor swing
A2
  Ladies RS full hey
B1
  Ladies pass right
  Partner turn right shoulder, swing
B2
  Circle left 3/4
  (same) neighbor swing
Notes
  I've found folks are also happy just skipping the right shoulder 'round /
gypsy in the B1 and going straight to the swing - either way works, your
mileage may vary.


On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:30 AM Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Howdy Maia!
>
> "Cheat Lake Gypsies" sprung to mind.  I think I had it down as a Cary
> Ravitz dance, but on his website, it looks like it was done collaboratively
> by a group of folks at a dance weekend. Of course, the other annoying thing
> about this dance is that the title includes the G-word. I trust you'll
> handle that in some way that feels appropriate for you and your audience. :)
>
> Cheat Lake Gypsies
> Becket CCW
>
> A1 - Take hands in a ring and balance (4).
> - Ladies gypsy 1/2 (4).
> - Neighbors swing (8).
>
> A2 - Neighbors promenade around the full set (oval), counter-clockwise
> (6).
> - Ladies turn back to find a new neighbor (2).
> - (New) neighbors swing (8).
>
> B1 - Take hands with the full set and circle left (8).
> - Keep your neighbor and look for your partner to circle left 3/4 (8).
>
> B2 - Partners gypsy and swing (16).
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Linda Leslie via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Here are a few for you, Maia. Hope the workshop is a lot of fun!
>> Linda
>> ps: I have not seen your dance before…
>>
>> *Back from Vermont*
>> by David Zinkin
>> Contra/Improper/Int
>>
>> A1 ---
>> Neighbor swing
>> Long lines forward and back
>> A2 ---
>> Star right three-quarters to long waves (P right, gents out, ladies in)
>> Balance the long wave
>> Shadow allemande left once
>> B1 ---
>> Partner Balance and Swing
>> B2 ---
>> Circle left three-quarters
>> Swing same neighbor
>>   At ends, don't cross! shadow!
>>
>> *Got Nice Neighbors*
>> by Billy Boyer
>> Contra/Becket-CW/Easy
>>
>> A1 ---
>> Down the Hall four in line, turn as a couple, return
>> A2 ---
>> Circle left 3/4
>> (8) Neighbor swing
>> B1 ---
>> (8) Long lines, forward and back
>> (8) NEXT Neighbor swing*
>> B2 ---
>> (8) Ladies allemande Right 1-1/2
>> (8) Partner swing
>>
>> *Naked in California*
>> by Nils Fredland
>> Contra/Improper/Int
>>
>> A1 ---
>> Long lines forward and back
>> Neighbor swing
>> A2 ---
>> Ladies allemande right One-Half
>> Partner allemande left three-quarters
>> Shadow allemande right once and a half (ladies out, gents face in)
>> B1 ---
>> Long waves balance right, left, Slide right
>> Partner swing
>> B2 ---
>> Circle left three-quarters
>> Same neighbor swing
>>
>> *Around the Sound*
>> by Cary Ravitz
>> Contra/Becket-CW/Adv
>>
>> A1 ---
>> (var. on Give & Take): Long lines forward
>>  Neighbor gypsy 1/2, gent back up with N to swing (ladies side)
>> A2 ---
>> (8) 1/2 Hey, men passing left shoulders
>> Same Neighbor swing
>> B1 ---
>> Long lines forward, P gypsy 1/2 (same effect as pass thru, TA)
>> (8) Star Right 3/4
>> NEW GENTS alle L once (ladies step L to meet P)
>>
>> B2 ---
>> P B
>>
>> *CDS Reel*
>> by Ted Sannella
>> Contra/Improper/Easy
>>
>> A1 ---
>> Neighbor swing
>> Long lines forward and back (end join in)
>> A2 ---
>> Whole set circle left
>> Circle right
>> B1 ---
>> Star left three-quarters
>> Gents turn back and swing partner
>> B2 ---
>> Gents allemande left once and a half
>> Same neighbor Swing
>>
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2017, at 11:19 PM, Maia McCormick via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> Looking for a dance with multiple swings with the same N, and also
>> preferably a P b, for a workshop I'm running on in-dance communication.
>> Anyone have one to recommend?
>>
>> On a similar note, this is the dance I tossed off to fill this need: does
>> it exist? If not, tentatively titling it "Good Fences".
>>
>> Improper
>> A1: long lines forward and back
>> (new) N swing
>> A2: ladies chain to P
>> half hey (ladies pass R)
>> B1: P b
>> B2: gents alle. L 1 1/2
>> (same) N swing
>> ___
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> 

[Callers] Rotation shifts (was: Another dance-check zig-zag R dance)

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

As long as you're opening this line of thought, here's some more thoughts:

Should we thus also say that every circle L / star R to circle R / star L
transition has equally no place in contra? Because that's even more of a
pronounced shift in rotational direction. (To be clear: with same
neighbors, not as a transition.)

I can imagine a counter-point would be noting that the swing is unique
because it's a tighter rotation, and so it's not the same as stars/circles.

But then how do we explain the frequency of dances with swing to ladies
allemande right / ladies pass right to start a hey? It's absolutely ladies
going from clockwise swing rotation to moving the opposite direction.

Or how about some other frequently used transitions (from most frequent)?:

Chain / R+L Thru to circle left. (Common, and a change in vector for both
roles)

Chain/star promenade to Face Next neighbor, DSD/"Gypsy"/Allemandes R with
that new neighbor. (Less common, but I dance one of these every few weeks,
on average.)

Contra Corners dances where ladies role has to make both a hand and
direction change (like... Chorus Jig)

And maybe the answer someone might give is "these are all bad flow". Yet
people seem to like many dances with them in it. I would be interested to
find out why.

In dance,
Ron

On Mar 14, 2017 11:41 PM, "Bob Isaacs" <isaacs...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ron and All:


I respectfully disagree.  As long as we swing in a clockwise direction, the
swing/circle R transition will flow poorly for both roles, and should
have no place in any contra dance -


Bob




--
*From:* Ron Blechner <contra...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:19 PM
*To:* Bob Isaacs
*Cc:* Caller's discussion list
*Subject:* Re: [Callers] Another dance-check zig-zag R dance

I dance the ladies role enough where I feel I can confidently assert that
swing -> circle R is as difficult for gents as swing -> circle L is for
ladies. Either way, one person is unfolding from the swing opposite from
the rotation of the subsequent circle.

The bigger objection to flow is simply that it's a circle right that is
from a standstill, and people don't dance many circle rights. (But we dance
plenty circle lefts from a standstill.) In this case, I'm interested in the
circle R as something to fill a second-half-of-evening slot where I often
have need for dances that are fairly easy but not the same old circle
lefts, swings, stars, chains, and allemandes.

Best,
Ron

On Mar 14, 2017 11:05 PM, "Bob Isaacs via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi Ron:
>
>
> Two transitions in this dance I find troubling.  The R and L through/gents
> allemande is awkward for the gents, whose L hand is occupied in the
> courtesy turn of the R and L through.  This can be avoided by 1/2 hey (GL,
> PR, LL, NR), gents allemande L 1 1/2 (or allemande/hey if you prefer that
> order).
>
>
> But swing/circle R?
>
>
> Bob
>
>
> ----------
> *From:* Callers <callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of Ron
> Blechner via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:49:10 PM
> *To:* callers
> *Subject:* [Callers] Another dance-check zig-zag R dance
>
> So, this is a cross between Jeff Spero's Kiss the Bride and Rick Mohr's
> Rockin' Robin:
>
> Duple Imp.
> A1. N DSD (6)
>NS (10)
> A2. R+L Thru (8) (across)
>Gents Alle L 1.5x (8)
> B1. P Meltdown Swing (16)*
> B2. Circle R 1.25x (10)
>Zig R, Zag L (6) (to next Ns)
>
> I was futzing with Kiss the Bride and this came out. I'd like to give
> credit if it's been written, or pick a name if not.
>
> In dance,
> Ron Blechner
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another dance-check zig-zag R dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I dance the ladies role enough where I feel I can confidently assert that
swing -> circle R is as difficult for gents as swing -> circle L is for
ladies. Either way, one person is unfolding from the swing opposite from
the rotation of the subsequent circle.

The bigger objection to flow is simply that it's a circle right that is
from a standstill, and people don't dance many circle rights. (But we dance
plenty circle lefts from a standstill.) In this case, I'm interested in the
circle R as something to fill a second-half-of-evening slot where I often
have need for dances that are fairly easy but not the same old circle
lefts, swings, stars, chains, and allemandes.

Best,
Ron

On Mar 14, 2017 11:05 PM, "Bob Isaacs via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi Ron:
>
>
> Two transitions in this dance I find troubling.  The R and L through/gents
> allemande is awkward for the gents, whose L hand is occupied in the
> courtesy turn of the R and L through.  This can be avoided by 1/2 hey (GL,
> PR, LL, NR), gents allemande L 1 1/2 (or allemande/hey if you prefer that
> order).
>
>
> But swing/circle R?
>
>
> Bob
>
>
> --
> *From:* Callers <callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net> on behalf of Ron
> Blechner via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:49:10 PM
> *To:* callers
> *Subject:* [Callers] Another dance-check zig-zag R dance
>
> So, this is a cross between Jeff Spero's Kiss the Bride and Rick Mohr's
> Rockin' Robin:
>
> Duple Imp.
> A1. N DSD (6)
>NS (10)
> A2. R+L Thru (8) (across)
>Gents Alle L 1.5x (8)
> B1. P Meltdown Swing (16)*
> B2. Circle R 1.25x (10)
>Zig R, Zag L (6) (to next Ns)
>
> I was futzing with Kiss the Bride and this came out. I'd like to give
> credit if it's been written, or pick a name if not.
>
> In dance,
> Ron Blechner
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another dance-check zig-zag R dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I'm also debating the merits of swapping the A2a with a half hey (GL, PR,
LL, NR)

On Mar 14, 2017 9:49 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> So, this is a cross between Jeff Spero's Kiss the Bride and Rick Mohr's
> Rockin' Robin:
>
> Duple Imp.
> A1. N DSD (6)
>NS (10)
> A2. R+L Thru (8) (across)
>Gents Alle L 1.5x (8)
> B1. P Meltdown Swing (16)*
> B2. Circle R 1.25x (10)
>Zig R, Zag L (6) (to next Ns)
>
> I was futzing with Kiss the Bride and this came out. I'd like to give
> credit if it's been written, or pick a name if not.
>
> In dance,
> Ron Blechner
>

[Callers] Another dance-check zig-zag R dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

So, this is a cross between Jeff Spero's Kiss the Bride and Rick Mohr's
Rockin' Robin:

Duple Imp.
A1. N DSD (6)
   NS (10)
A2. R+L Thru (8) (across)
   Gents Alle L 1.5x (8)
B1. P Meltdown Swing (16)*
B2. Circle R 1.25x (10)
   Zig R, Zag L (6) (to next Ns)

I was futzing with Kiss the Bride and this came out. I'd like to give
credit if it's been written, or pick a name if not.

In dance,
Ron Blechner

Re: [Callers] Difficult dancers as a caller

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Mac, suggestions on how?

(Guessing this is more of an organizer, not caller, thing to do.)

Ron Blechner

On Mar 7, 2017 9:51 AM, "Mac Mckeever via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> It has been my experience that dancers with limited skills/ability  often
> do not realize they are different from anyone else.  They assume that being
> lost and confused during a dance is normal.
>
> Finding a gentle way to bring this to their attention might be a good way
> to start
>
> Mac McKeever
> STLouis
>
>
> --
> *From:* Martha Wild via Callers 
> *To:* Caller's discussion list 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2017 8:40 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Difficult dancers as a caller
>
> As one other caller mentioned - what I do as a caller is avoid looking at
> that dancer AT ALL. That confuses me, and I will miscall if I get to caught
> up in what is happening there. What I do is look ASAP for the dancers who
> are doing the moves smoothly and well, and I call to them, making sure I
> call clearly at the start of the four beats before each move will start,
> and not at the two beats before that I might often use, to give a little
> extra time for the person to react. If there is a four in line down the
> hall, I will call for the turn also on beat five of the phrase before (just
> as above, just saying it differently) ensuring that they turn around and
> head back in time to cast off or do whatever needs to be done in time for
> the next move. If I call carefully and steadily and clearly at the
> appropriate time for a few times through the dance to the experienced
> dancers, I generally find that once I look at the problem area, it has
> resolved. Also - I don’t vary or shorten my calls, as I might otherwise,
> and I might say Neighbor balance and swing, or With the next couple star
> left - telling them who to do it with and what, or face across, right and
> left through - which way to face etc. especially on any figure that might
> be confusing.
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Inspired by Marie's other thread, I wonder what tools callers use when
> they encounter a dance floor with such a dancer, especially if there is
> only one who is having so much difficulty but who leaves confused dancers
> in their wake. Do you call to that dancer? Do you call earlier? Do you
> adjust your program accordingly? Something else?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> 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] What to do with a really bad new dancer?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I'd love to hear suggestions on how to approach a dancer like the one in
question, and broach the subject.

-Ron Blechner

On Mar 7, 2017 1:20 PM, "JD Erskine via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On 2017-03-07 0627, Martha Wild via Callers wrote:
>
>> I’d like to add another point to Neal’s reasoning:
>>
>> As a 5 foot 1 inch woman dancer (and a caller), I can also add that the
>> female of the human species is known to generally be smaller than the
>> male.
>>
>
> major snip
>
> In general, then, it’s a lot
>> easier for a big guy to gently direct a small mixed-up woman in the
>> right direction, than it is for me to change the course of the Titanic
>> once it starts blundering among the icebergs. That is definitely another
>> reason people tend to notice the problem with male dancers more. But we
>> have had at least one large dancing-challenged woman whose size made it
>> equally difficult to direct - I occasionally tried dancing as the man
>> with her, but gave it up because it hurt my arms too much.
>>
>
> Martha
>>
>
> George Marshall was in town in the autumn. A teaching point that stood out
> for me in his pre-dance/inclusivity workshop was, that if someone is
> still/stationary it's more difficult to move them or guide them to where
> they might go.
>
> If someone is dancing (simply in motion of some sort), even if in a place
> other than expected, they may be directed more easily.
>
> (I keep thinking an air-hockey table at work, however I'm from "up here".)
>
> If our male dancer in question is lumbering, stiff, not moving much, and
> can/may move, then assisting him in that might help make it easier to
> direct him more in the normal flow of the dance.
>
> To do more certainly would be best with permission, awareness of offered
> assistance.
>
> Cheers, John
> --
> J.D. Erskine
> Victoria, BC
>
> Island Dance - Folk & Country
> dance info - site & mail list
> Vancouver Island & BC islands
>
> http://vecds.ca/island.dance/
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Pousette between mad robins

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Songbird is neat - MR to half pousette to another half pousette in the same
direction to a MR with next.

Ron

On Feb 24, 2017 4:25 PM, "Chris Page" <chriscp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Songbird by Cary Ravitz
> Rough Ride by Tom Hinds
>
> -Chris Page
> San Diego
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> > Choreography question:
> >
> > Anyone encounter any dances with a mad robin, half pousette, into a mad
> > Robin with new neighbors?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ron Blechner
> >
> > ___
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> >
>

Re: [Callers] Pousette between mad robins

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I like the return to the original neighbors, making the second Mad Robin /
Shuttle a neighbor-peek move.

Ron

On Feb 24, 2017 3:38 PM, "Michael Barraclough" <
mich...@michaelbarraclough.com> wrote:

> *Smooth Ride - Michael Barraclough (2008)*
> A1 1-4 Neighbor shuttles *(men outside, ladies inside)* 5-8 Half pousette 
> *(ladies
> push, men backup)* A2 1-4 *(Next) *neighbor shuttle *(men inside, ladies
> outside) *
> 5-8 Half pousette *(with original couple, men push, ladies backup, all
> back home with original couple)*
>
> B1 1-4 Balance the ring, Petronella
> 5-8 Partner swing
>
> B2 1-4 Promenade over
> 5-8 Ladies chain
>
> Michael Barraclough
> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>
>
> On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 14:16 -0500, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>
> Choreography question:
>
> Anyone encounter any dances with a mad robin, half pousette, into a mad
> Robin with new neighbors?
>
> Thanks,
> Ron Blechner
>
> ___
> Callers mailing 
> listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

[Callers] Pousette between mad robins

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Choreography question:

Anyone encounter any dances with a mad robin, half pousette, into a mad
Robin with new neighbors?

Thanks,
Ron Blechner

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I have danced at a bunch of genderfree dances, as well as my home dance
having a lot of people who dance both roles. I can't say I've ever had this
"diet contra" experience.

My home dance is widely known among musicians and callers as a lively crowd
who brings good energy to performers. Proper and improper have little
relevance, but that doesn't stop a seeming endless supply of new
choreography being generated and called by various callers. Does it really
matter if I'm allemanding or swinging with a particular gender? I guess a
person can still choose to only dance with one gender if they really felt
strongly.

But saying that genderfree dancing is bland? I mean, it's a folk community
dance. The whole point is we all dance in one big set together. If dancing
only to swing people of one gender means so much that contra is "diet"
without it, I would ask what exactly contra means to you?


Best regards,
Ron Blechner



On Feb 13, 2017 6:17 PM, "Woody Lane via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

I basically agree with Neal. I would not want to replace gents and ladies
with other arbitrary terms. For many of the same reasons.

Woody

-- 
Woody Lane
Caller, Percussive Dancer
Roseburg, Oregon
http://www.woodylanecaller.com
home: 541-440-1926 <(541)%20440-1926> cell: 541-556-0054 <(541)%20556-0054>
--

On 2/13/2017 2:51 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote:

I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own experience.

Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending on
how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up dancing.  I
started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD, Scottish, squares,
contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels of proficiency.  Seeing
a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman dancing the gent's role, has
never, ever phased me.  It's fun to swap, requires technical skill, speaks
well of a dancer who can do it well stylistically, and sometimes is
necessary to fill out a set.  It is also an important skill for any caller,
and one callers need to know how to handle when it happens in special
situations; the callers I grew up with talked about when they first
encountered gay or one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to
adjust on the fly.

That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and Rose
(?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago.  I didn't know
what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD event until they
lined up and started teaching.

They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some
older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned from
Berea's Christmas Country Dance School.  Aside from momentary confusion,
adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up was not a problem
for me.

What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the
character of the dances I knew.  They became less elegant, less
interesting, and were lessened overall.  Switching between an A and a B
position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different floor
pattern.  Proper and improper had no relevance.  There was no stylistic
mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to historically
demanded or intended stylistic differences had been stripped out--there
weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions; there was nothing to hold
onto even as a guideline for playacting.  The dances completely lost their
flavor and character.  They became like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke.
(I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT EVER MADE?  Just drink water!)

Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and agree
with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the terms
"gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively influence how
people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is done.  I don't
worry about that at special or family events, of course; I just want
everyone to get up and have a good time.  But encouraging folks to learn
both roles to become better dancers is only meaningful if there is a
meaningful difference between the roles.

I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners and
corners.  I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go to dances
for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd play
football.  If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority of our
general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar.  So why not let
the dance reflect that?  That's more likely to win friends than taking a
wonderful dance with character and making it into  "gender free diet
crystal contra."

Just my 2 cents.
Neal

Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library


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

Re: [Callers] Local styles vs. consensus (Was: Another vote for "jets" and "rubies")

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hearing the multiple-prompts-for-same-move topic framed in a new way has
been helpful to me. I've enjoyed that local communities have different
feels to them. I like that this discussion led to Tony and others
indicating that term variations are part of the charm of local variations.

With regards to Tony's question about the number of terms increasing in
contra, a question:
I understand that squares used to be more commonly interspersed with
contras at dances, correct? Squares provide so many different moves that
they need special teaching for individual dances. So are modern contras
that much different?

If I need to teach a box the gnat or a square-thru to a room with a number
of new dancers, does it matter whether that move is taught for a contra or
a square? I agree that the contras themselves have gotten more complex in
the past few decades, but the overall choreography over time? I might like
to hear more voices of long-time callers / dancers for perspective.

Best regards,
Ron Blechner

On Jan 30, 2017 10:17 AM, "Tony Parkes via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

Rich Hart wrote:



<< I'd also add to your two requirements (enjoyable and in a safe space), a
third one. that is that our dances should also be welcoming to all,
regardless of their position in life, and dance skills.  As callers, we all
try to chose dances and calls that are appropriate, and acceptable for the
local dancers. That should not change.>>

I deliberately kept my list of requirements short, because I’m not
convinced there’s consensus on any others. You might think “welcoming to
all, regardless of… dance skills” would be a no-brainer, but in reality,
some series are (perceived as) far less welcoming than others. One could
even argue (though I’m not arguing here) that this is not necessarily a bad
thing, as long as there’s at least one series in every metropolitan area
that nurtures beginners. I do want to say that I find it somewhat troubling
when a series that doesn’t bill itself as “challenging” or “experienced”
develops a reputation for freezing out newcomers.

I agree that callers try to present programs that are “acceptable for the
local dancers”; but that’s not the same as being “welcoming to all.” The
local dancers may be quite sophisticated in their tastes and capacities,
and it may be hard (though not impossible) to please them and still foster
an inclusive atmosphere.

The disparity between series attitudes may be a good thing, a bad thing, or
some of each, but it’s the reality in many areas.

Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com
New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)



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

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile for
this to be polled out to various dances.

Best regards,
Ron

On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt"  wrote:

Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on.

Jeff and Ron:  You both seem like the statisticians here.  Is there any
data that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are
and where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?

Just curious.

Ron:  When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data about
that compared to dances where attendance is not down?  Again, looking for
information country wide or even geographic area.

Thanks
Donna Hunt

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi Jeff,

Some points:

"You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free
calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are
attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care
either way."

If that's the case, one would assume there are also plenty of traditional
venue dancers who don't care either way. To that effect, genderfree roles
are not as scary as some have claimed.

"The particular dances that have
been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't
look to me like they're growing tremendously.  Instead, newer
fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching
to it.  I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting."

Dances using gents/ladies up and down the East coast are dwindling in
attendance. I'm hearing that from nearly every organizer I speak with.

I don't understand discounting new dances at all. If there was a demand for
a genderfree dance, and it was filled, how is that not proof of growth of
overall genderfree dancing?

"Some pushback seems reasonable to me.  Just like I think people should
be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra
dances should move to being gender free.  Not immediately -- it's fine
to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances
try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think
moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a
community."

That may be in many peoples' beliefs, but I hadn't seen it specifically
brought up by anyone in this email discussion until now. I might have
understood pushback had it been brought up, but it wasn't.

Best,
Ron

On Jan 27, 2017 12:58 PM, "Jeff Kaufman" <j...@alum.swarthmore.edu> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree
> terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those
> dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western
> Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and
> Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones
> I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's
a
> demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on
> several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender
> free roles.

You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free
calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are
attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care
either way.

> These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown
tremendously
> in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*.

That's not what it looks like to me.  The particular dances that have
been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't
look to me like they're growing tremendously.  Instead, newer
fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching
to it.  I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting.

> This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree
> traditional dances. Let us talk.

Some pushback seems reasonable to me.  Just like I think people should
be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra
dances should move to being gender free.  Not immediately -- it's fine
to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances
try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think
moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a
community.

Jeff

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

. I've seen first-time dancers
dancing together and accidentally switching roles every time through the
dance, *and nobody told them they were doing it wrong. *They just danced
with them, and it was great! In short, *they are better dancers*.

And since most of us here are callers: Yes, it's on us to put in a bit more
work. I've now called using Jets/Rubies and Bands/Bares, and while I prefer
the former set, neither was impossibly challenging. Neither was as
difficult as walking through a new dance for the first time.

If you care for the health of our shared community, I implore you to do the
work. Read the materials, especially the research that Ron, Jeff, and
others have linked to here. Investigate the politics around gender and
genderfree restrooms. Try dancing or even calling for a genderfree series.

Thank you all so much for taking the time to participate in this
conversation and for taking the energy to consider both sides. I'll look
forward to seeing you all on the dance floor.

Angela

[1] http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-
through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/#sthash.M8yxvCQ1.dpbs

On Jan 27, 2017 3:08 AM, "Jim Hemphill via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones
> feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred
> to as some form of rock or bird or whatever.
>
> The role a dancer chooses is really defined by which side of their
> partnership they choose to start the dance or end a swing on.  Working from
> that basis just about any contra move can be taught or called without
> reference to gender.
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I have been calling at many venues over the years and using the role
>> terms "gents" and "ladies" has NOT been a problem.  When teaching, I
>> explain these DO NOT refer to gender but rather to the role you are
>> dancing.  Beginners seem to understand and not have any problem.  The
>> experienced dancers are very helpful as well.  I agree with Donna in the
>> aspect of teaching a new vocabulary that goes with a movement with new
>> words that don't have any relationship to the moves is confusing enough to
>> me, who understands the process.  Throw all this at new dancers who move
>> from venue to venue where the terms change, makes my head hurt as well.
>> There is an old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"  Maybe we should
>> all rethink this.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Donna Hunt via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> To: contraron <contra...@gmail.com>; babsgroh <babsg...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 12:37 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
>>
>> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and
>> such a variety to boot.  Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand
>> new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the
>> movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with
>> remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at
>> different dance locations.  Augh my head hurts just thinking about it.
>>
>> Donna
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> To: Barbara Groh <babsg...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
>>
>> Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized
>> groups?
>>
>> Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you
>> personally is super privileged.
>>
>> Ron Blechner
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the
>>> Luddite Club.  I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the
>>> contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which
>>> alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms being
>>> bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling).
>>>
>>> You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I
>>> won't say anything moreexcept this:  Please, let'

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

 were doing it wrong. *They just danced
with them, and it was great! In short, *they are better dancers*.

And since most of us here are callers: Yes, it's on us to put in a bit more
work. I've now called using Jets/Rubies and Bands/Bares, and while I prefer
the former set, neither was impossibly challenging. Neither was as
difficult as walking through a new dance for the first time.

If you care for the health of our shared community, I implore you to do the
work. Read the materials, especially the research that Ron, Jeff, and
others have linked to here. Investigate the politics around gender and
genderfree restrooms. Try dancing or even calling for a genderfree series.

Thank you all so much for taking the time to participate in this
conversation and for taking the energy to consider both sides. I'll look
forward to seeing you all on the dance floor.

Angela

[1] http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-
binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/#sthash.M8yxvCQ1.dpbs

On Jan 27, 2017 3:08 AM, "Jim Hemphill via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones
> feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred
> to as some form of rock or bird or whatever.
>
> The role a dancer chooses is really defined by which side of their
> partnership they choose to start the dance or end a swing on.  Working from
> that basis just about any contra move can be taught or called without
> reference to gender.
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I have been calling at many venues over the years and using the role
>> terms "gents" and "ladies" has NOT been a problem.  When teaching, I
>> explain these DO NOT refer to gender but rather to the role you are
>> dancing.  Beginners seem to understand and not have any problem.  The
>> experienced dancers are very helpful as well.  I agree with Donna in the
>> aspect of teaching a new vocabulary that goes with a movement with new
>> words that don't have any relationship to the moves is confusing enough to
>> me, who understands the process.  Throw all this at new dancers who move
>> from venue to venue where the terms change, makes my head hurt as well.
>> There is an old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"  Maybe we should
>> all rethink this.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Donna Hunt via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> To: contraron <contra...@gmail.com>; babsgroh <babsg...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 12:37 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
>>
>> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and
>> such a variety to boot.  Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand
>> new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the
>> movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with
>> remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at
>> different dance locations.  Augh my head hurts just thinking about it.
>>
>> Donna
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> To: Barbara Groh <babsg...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
>>
>> Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized
>> groups?
>>
>> Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you
>> personally is super privileged.
>>
>> Ron Blechner
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the
>>> Luddite Club.  I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the
>>> contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which
>>> alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms being
>>> bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling).
>>>
>>> You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I
>>> won't say anything moreexcept this:  Please, let's not start an
>>> argument over whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite!
>>>
>>> Barbara Groh

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Cognitively, it's not as complex as you make it out to be, Donna. (With all
due respect)

Roles are used almost entirely as the first word in a prompt. For dancers,
it's not a new vocabulary, it's a prefix change. That's a lot easier, and
I've heard *lots* of feedback from dancers of "I stopped noticing after the
first dance" and I have not heard any "even at the end of the night I still
had issues".

Further, there are dance communities experimenting with different terms -
Brooklyn, Hampshire, Village as examples - I've yet to hear that their
dancers are all messed up. I've heard the contrary, in fact.

Further, there are dancers who dance in multiple communities with different
terms. If your hypothesis were true, we'd expect that these people would be
having difficulty. They're not.

In addition, I find it funny how no one complains how hard it is to switch
between the very different sounding words "gents" and "men" / "ladies" and
"women". Again, if this "oh no, different terms are hard" hypothesis were
true, we'd already hear complaints. Plenty of dances have callers that use
either / or / both. No big deal.

>From a caller's perspective, I absolutely appreciate that it's harder. I'd
like to see a standard genderfree set of terms be adopted, absolutely. I'm
also glad we're moving away from bands/bares, if only because the words
sound too similar. That was a good solution for many years, but it's time
to move on.

For me personally calling, I find swapping terms isn't *that* bad, but I
know I don't represent everyone. Some callers need a second set of dance
cards with the terms. If a caller isn't up for a requirement of a
community, then, I guess they don't need to call there.

Change meant to broaden inclusion may pose challenges, but I for one think
they're worth it when dancers are requesting it in large numbers.

Best regards,
Ron Blechner

On Jan 26, 2017 11:42 AM, "Donna Hunt" <dhuntdan...@aol.com> wrote:

> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and
> such a variety to boot.  Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand
> new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the
> movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with
> remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at
> different dance locations.  Augh my head hurts just thinking about it.
>
> Donna
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Barbara Groh <babsg...@gmail.com>
> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
>
> Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized groups?
>
> Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you
> personally is super privileged.
>
> Ron Blechner
>
> On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the
>> Luddite Club.  I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the
>> contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which
>> alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms being
>> bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling).
>>
>> You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I won't
>> say anything moreexcept this:  Please, let's not start an argument over
>> whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite!
>>
>> Barbara Groh
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess that I am a Luddite. Here's how I see it.
>>>
>>> Somewhere between 80-90% of the population is 'straight'. Surely, we
>>> want these people as well to come to our dances.  It can be difficult
>>> enough to get past the dance lingo without adding the complexity of
>>> renaming labels for people that almost everyone already understands. To me,
>>> what really matters is that we run dances where everyone accepts everyone
>>> else's sexuality; where individual dancers can feel free to dance either
>>> role; where everyone is welcome. I am not convinced that 'non-straight'
>>> individuals are put off by the historical labels that we use, rather the
>>> lack of the 3 conditions that I have just outlined.
>>>
>>> Census data show the U.S. adult population is about 239m. Searching the
>>> web I can find around 3

Re: [Callers] What dance series are using what gender-free terms?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hampshire is still kicking around different terms.
Village Contra, NYC: Larks/Ravens
Brooklyn, NYC: Lead/Follow
Contradelphia is defunct after... Heh. Controversy.
Montpelier Contra Exchange, VT: Jets / Rubies


On Jan 25, 2017 2:58 PM, "Nick Cuccia via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

On 01/25/2017 11:25 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers wrote:
> I know several dance series use gender-free terms:
>
>   Jets/Rubies: Portland ME
>   Lead/Follow: Hampshire College, Contradelphia [defunct?]
>   Bands/Bare-arms: JP, Western MA
>   Larks/ Ravens: Circle Left, South Bay
>
> Does anyone know of other dances that are gender free, and what terms
they use?
The BACDS Berkeley (Wednesday) and Hayward (Sunday) contras also use
Larks/Ravens.

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

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized groups?

Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you
personally is super privileged.

Ron Blechner

On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the
> Luddite Club.  I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the
> contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which
> alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms being
> bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling).
>
> You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I won't
> say anything moreexcept this:  Please, let's not start an argument over
> whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite!
>
> Barbara Groh
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I guess that I am a Luddite. Here's how I see it.
>>
>> Somewhere between 80-90% of the population is 'straight'. Surely, we
>> want these people as well to come to our dances.  It can be difficult
>> enough to get past the dance lingo without adding the complexity of
>> renaming labels for people that almost everyone already understands. To me,
>> what really matters is that we run dances where everyone accepts everyone
>> else's sexuality; where individual dancers can feel free to dance either
>> role; where everyone is welcome. I am not convinced that 'non-straight'
>> individuals are put off by the historical labels that we use, rather the
>> lack of the 3 conditions that I have just outlined.
>>
>> Census data show the U.S. adult population is about 239m. Searching the
>> web I can find around 300 contra dances, 150 English Country Dances and
>> 1000 MWSD clubs. My generous guess is that less than 100,000 people go
>> to these dances, less than 50,000 if we ignore MWSD. Did you know that
>> over 700,000 people in the U.S. own a ferret? That means there are 7x as
>> many people in the USA who own a ferret compared to the number of people
>> who go to our dances!
>>
>> Let's put less rather than more barriers in the way of getting those
>> who don't dance with us (that's 99.6% of the population) to join us.
>>
>> Michael Barraclough
>> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:19 -0500, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>> > I know I'd appreciate it if people had new suggestions, they'd review
>> > existing considerations for what makes terms usable. Things like 1:2
>> > syllable ratio, distinct vowel sounds - these disqualify a lot of
>> > terms as being unfeasible for the same reason "bare arms / arm bands"
>> > as terms are not preferable. The PDF spreadsheet that Dugan linked is
>> > the result of my study with teamwork and sourcing from many dancers.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Ron Blechner
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 20, 2017 7:28 PM, "Keith Tuxhorn via Callers" <callers@lists.s
>> > haredweight.net> wrote:
>> > > This conversation exhausts me,  even though I know and accept it's
>> > > all part of the folk process.
>> > >
>> > > So I will make my one contribution... two terms I thought of a
>> > > couple weeks ago.
>> > >
>> > > Mun and Wem.
>> > >
>> > > They sound enough like the current terms that the brains of both
>> > > callers and dancers can make an easy transition. They're made-up
>> > > words, so they have no gender. And they're short. And easy to say.
>> > >
>> > > Mun and Wem.
>> > >
>> > > Okay, I've done my bit.
>> > >
>> > > Keith Tuxhorn
>> > > Springfield IL
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Dugan Murphy via Callers <callers@
>> > > lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> > > > Since it was an article about my dance series that started this
>> > > > conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason
>> > > > we chose "jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that
>> > > > regular contra dancers from other places can come in and dance
>> > > > without needing anything to be explained to them since the terms
>> > > > are pretty similar to "gents" and "ladies."
>> > > >
>> > > > We also

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I know I'd appreciate it if people had new suggestions, they'd review
existing considerations for what makes terms usable. Things like 1:2
syllable ratio, distinct vowel sounds - these disqualify a lot of terms as
being unfeasible for the same reason "bare arms / arm bands" as terms are
not preferable. The PDF spreadsheet that Dugan linked is the result of my
study with teamwork and sourcing from many dancers.

Best,
Ron Blechner

On Jan 20, 2017 7:28 PM, "Keith Tuxhorn via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> This conversation exhausts me,  even though I know and accept it's all
> part of the folk process.
>
> So I will make my one contribution... two terms I thought of a couple
> weeks ago.
>
> Mun and Wem.
>
> They sound enough like the current terms that the brains of both callers
> and dancers can make an easy transition. They're made-up words, so they
> have no gender. And they're short. And easy to say.
>
> Mun and Wem.
>
> Okay, I've done my bit.
>
> Keith Tuxhorn
> Springfield IL
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Dugan Murphy via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Since it was an article about my dance series that started this
>> conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason we chose
>> "jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that regular contra dancers
>> from other places can come in and dance without needing anything to be
>> explained to them since the terms are pretty similar to "gents" and
>> "ladies."
>>
>> We also took a look at this graphic of Ron Blechner's analysis of
>> gender-free role terms people have been talking about:
>> http://amherstcontra.org/ContraDanceRoleTerms.pdf
>>
>> We may not use "jets" and "rubies" forever, but we figured we'd give it a
>> try.  There didn't seem to be any reasons not to try and there are
>> certainly plenty of reasons to try.
>>
>> Most men at our dance dance as jets and most women dance as rubies, but
>> for the few who dance opposite, switch around, or whose gender expression
>> doesn't fit the man/woman binary, I'd like to think that formally
>> separating dance roles from gender is validating in a meaningful way.
>>
>> Dugan Murphy
>> Portland, Maine
>> dugan at duganmurphy.com
>> www.DuganMurphy.com
>> www.PortlandIntownContraDance.com
>> www.NufSed.consulting
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Cara,

Further reading:

http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/132380206885/lead-and-follow-as-styles-not-roles-in-contra

Best,
Ron Blechner

On Jan 18, 2017 11:03 PM, "Cara Sawyer via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi everyone again,
> Angela, Jeff thank you.
> I appreciate knowing the emotional attachment many had to the history of
> these calling terms. I had no clue. From where I was coming from, it was
> more of a logistical question for my calling aspirations, trying to figure
> out what is easiest for the dancers to understand. I have had personal
> experience with it being difficult to remember if I was a Band or Bare, it
> seems arbitrary and now I see that this is intentional. It is good to hear
> some of the rationale and what others have experienced.
>
> Best,
> Cara
>
> Sent to you using thumbs.
>
> On Jan 18, 2017, at 18:59, Jeff Kaufman  wrote:
>
> Hi Cara!
>
> There is definitely a history! Many dancers don't like lead/follow as
> terms because they either don't think contra has a lead/follow dynamic or
> they don't want to encourage lead/follow dancing.
>
> Some dance series, primarily ones with younger dancers, do use those
> terms, but there are enough dancers opposed to them that I don't see them
> as a potential community-wide replacement the way rubies/jets could be.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Jan 18, 2017 7:53 PM, "Cara Sawyer via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>> I am quite new to the list and am only now embarking on learning to call,
>> but I have to ask a question I have had for awhile as a dancer that I now
>> need to understand as a caller: is there something wrong with Lead and
>> Follow?
>>
>> When I first encountered the creative alternatives in contra, I wasn't
>> sure what to think. I came to contra from a swing background and that is
>> what is used in workshops (and sort or in general now), since many people
>> switch in that dance style as well.
>>
>> Besides being an obvious description for the dancer role, it had the same
>> 1/2 syllables rhythm as Gent/Lady. And it seems to me to have the advantage
>> of being intuitively linked to how the dancer is thinking about
>> his/her/their role.
>>
>> Just curious if there is a history, I'm sure I am not the first person to
>> think of this.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Cara
>>
>> Sent to you using thumbs.
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:40, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using
>> Jets and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the
>> beginners' lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets'
>> palms face up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the
>> ground."
>>
>> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly
>> that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make
>> for easy teaching.
>>
>> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral
>> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and
>> Ladies.
>>
>> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine.
>>
>> Happy calling, everyone!
>>
>> Angela
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Not that Portland, the other Portland.  ;-)
>>>
>>> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-d
>>> ancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/
>>>
>>> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that
>>> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get
>>> away from "bands" and "bares".
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Does this dance exist?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Has it occurred to you that those in the gents role basically stay in the
same spot the whole dance?

On Dec 26, 2016 2:27 PM, "Maia McCormick via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

Ah, Don is correct that I'm missing the B2. Full dance is:
becket L
A1: slice L
ladies chain to N
A2: ladies chain to P
ladies alle. R 1 1/2
B1: N b
B2: circle L 3/4
P swing

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Maia McCormick  wrote:

> Whipped this one up looking for a double-chain dance to get beginners
> accustomed to the figure*. Has it been written before? (If not, tentatively
> titling this one "Chain of Fools".) (Uhh, unless there's another dance of
> that name already... which I can't imagine there isn't... in which case
> I'll come up with something else.)
>
> becket L
> A1: slice L
> ladies chain to N
> A2: ladies chain to P
> ladies alle. R 1 1/2
> B1: N b
> (Or perhaps the same dance, starting at B1, with "long lines forward and
> back" in place of the slice.)
>
> Cheers,
> Maia
>
> * currently my go-to dance for this purpose is currently Erik Hoffman's Made
> Up Tonight
> ,
> but I like to have options (and I like to have glossary dances that don't
> start with "N b").
>


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

Re: [Callers] Variations of 3-33 by Steve Zakon-Anderson

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Seconding what Perry said - if I'm swapping just one or two basic moves in
a dance that aren't the key-sequence of a dance, it's *not* a new dance,
just a minor variation.

I often write variations on cards. I mean:
- Balance + Swing vs Gypsy / Swing
- (role) alle 1.5x / Swing (someone) vs (role) pull-by + swing
- Progression variations (like the one Dugan listed, but others ... Circle
L 3/4, pass-thru, do-si-do next vs LLFB, Ladies chain, etc, etc.

Best,
Ron

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:41 PM, John Sweeney via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Instead of Ladies Dosido 1 & 1/2 I always teach Ladies Dosido then Pass
> Through (by the Right Shoulder).  That makes it clearer as to where they
> are
> heading (especially if they like spinning their Dosidos!).
>
> Happy dancing,
> John
>
> John Sweeney, Dancer, England j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362
> http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
>
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Post election day dances?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

In reflection, maybe it's best to not do any "election themed" dances.

:/

On Nov 13, 2016 1:56 PM, "Erik Hoffman via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> OK, it was written for a previous election fiasco, but:
>
> Black Wednesday-Nov 3 Blues
> Becket
> Erik HoffmanNovember 3, 2004
> A1  In foursome: BAL & Square Thru 2 X2, Start Nbr w/ Rt
> A2  R to Nbr: BAL, Nbr pull-by R, Pt Sw (or Pass Thru to Pt Sw)
> B1  Circle Lft ¾; Nbr Sw
> B2  Wm Chain; Lft Diag R
> Written & called the day after G.W. Bush stole yet another election.
>
> Just change the 3 to 9...
>
> ~Erik Hoffman
>   Oakland, CA
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Callers [mailto:callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net] On Behalf
> Of April Blum via Callers
> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 1:48 PM
> To: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> Subject: [Callers] Post election day dances?
>
> I calling the Baltimore contra on Wednesday.
>
> Vote With Your Feet of course.
> Others I am considering are:
> Take All of the Credit and None of the Blame The Eyes Have It Illegal in
> Most States Not a Figment of Your Imagination Rocks and Dirt In Cahoots
> Chaos Pie Blueshift The Dancer's Duty Long May It Wave There Is No Way to
> Peace
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
> April Blum
> ___
> 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] Dance ID inquiry

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Trip to Peterborough, by Rick Mohr

On Nov 12, 2016 3:47 PM, "David Lawrence Harvey via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Can anyone identify the following?
>
> Thank you,
> Dave
>
> Ladies to center and balance
>
> Gents to center and balance
>
>
>
> Gents LH ¾
>
> ½ hey (Neighbors right, ladies left )
>
> Swing partner
>
>
>
> Circle L ¾
>
> Neighbor RH 1 ½
>
>
>
> Allemande L New neighbor
>
> Swing old neighbor
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Positive values on the mic

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Reading all of these... So far everyone has had good suggestions. Keep 'em
coming!

On Oct 31, 2016 5:38 PM, "Richard Fischer via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Especially at community dances, but also at contras, I look for was to
> encourage dancers to say thank you. At community events one of my first
> dances is usually a kind of Appalachian square dance. Couples do one or two
> simple figures to my calls with another couple, and then I go, "Everybody,
> face your neighbors. ...  Say, "Thank you!"  ...   Take your partner and
> find new neighbors."  People seem to enjoy the opportunity to say thanks.
> At contras, if there is a pre-dance lesson, I try to work in some
> experience on progressing, even if it's in a mini-contra. (E.g., Circle
> left, circle right, dosido your neighbor, say thanks to your neighbor, walk
> forward to a new neighbor.)  And having the mic all evening I get
> opportunities to thank the band, sound personnel, organizers, and the
> dancers themselves.  Squares and triplets (and other set dances) give us a
> chance to encourage people to thank their whole set as well as their
> partner.
>
> Richard
>
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 1:47 PM, via Callers wrote:
>
> Once or twice a night, remind the dancers to hydrate and tell them where
> to find the punch bowl, drinking fountains, etc. If there are a lot of
> newcomers, they may not know where the water source is located (and you can
> joke that it's included with the price of admissionwho can resist!).
> Make it clear that you won't be starting the next dance for a few minutes -
> this encourages hydration, plus many dancers will be happy for the quick
> break and a chance to move to the side of the hall where they can mingle
> and find their next partner without fear that they'll be left out.
>
> Sue Gola
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Caller's discussion list <call...@sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Mon, Oct 31, 2016 12:56 pm
> Subject: [Callers] Positive values on the mic
>
> Hi Shared Weight,
> I'd like to hear some examples of things you as a caller (or you as an
> organizer encouraging callers) say on the mic during a dance to promote
> positive dance values.
> I ask because I'm reviewing my own dance's "calling our dance"
> communication with callers, as well as evaluating my own statements on mic.
> I'll get us started.
> I like to say, a couple times per evening, for dancers to look to the
> sidelines for dancers who were sitting out, in considering a partner.
> In dance,
> Ron Blechner
> ___
> 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] Positive values on the mic

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi Shared Weight,

I'd like to hear some examples of things you as a caller (or you as an
organizer encouraging callers) say on the mic during a dance to promote
positive dance values.

I ask because I'm reviewing my own dance's "calling our dance"
communication with callers, as well as evaluating my own statements on mic.

I'll get us started.

I like to say, a couple times per evening, for dancers to look to the
sidelines for dancers who were sitting out, in considering a partner.

In dance,
Ron Blechner

[Callers] Contra friendly squares

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi all,

I'm looking to expand the number of contra-friendly Squares in my box.

1. Keepers preferred unless it's a really good mixer.
2. Not too gimmicky.
3. Not really interested currently in Southern style visiting couple
squares (heads and sides fine, but not one couple at a time).

(Got Kimmswick Express, First Night Quadrille, a couple others)

Thanks,
Ron

Re: [Callers] Yet another "Anyone seen this dance?"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

It is really similar to Linda Leslie's mystery dance number 2

http://www.lindalesliecaller.website/duple-minor.html

On Sep 25, 2016 4:07 PM, "Ric Goldman - Letsdance via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I also called it as the opener with almost a whole line of beginners.  No
> problems and very positive response.
>
>
>
> I’ve decided to name it “Sleeping in Redondo” because that’s what I was
> doing when I put it together.  J
>
>
>
> Thanx, Ric Goldman
>
> letsda...@rgoldman.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Callers [mailto:callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Michael Barraclough via Callers
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 25, 2016 12:27 AM
> *To:* Alan Winston ;
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Yet another "Anyone seen this dance?"
>
>
>
> I called it tonight. Lot's of beginners. No issues.
>
>
>
> Michael Barraclough
>
> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 16:34 -0700, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
>
> If you call it tonight, I suspect some dancers will have some trouble with
> the circle left all the way around the second and subsequent times
> through.
>
> But let us know how it goes!
>
> -- Alan
>
>
>
> On 9/24/16 2:39 PM, Ric Goldman - Letsdance via Callers wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
>
> I was thinking about dances for tonite’s gig and this sequence came
> together in my heard.  I figure someone must’ve come up with it before me.
> Anyone recognize it?
>
>
>
> A1   Circle L 1x
>
> Nbr swing, end facing down
>
> A2   Down hall, turn alone
>
> Come back, bend line
>
> B1   Balance ring, petronella
>
> Ptnr swing
>
> B2   Circle L ¾
>
> Balance ring, California Twirl
>
>
>
> Thanx, Ric Goldman
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> 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] Dance Variety

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Regardless of the age of the dance, I try hard to mix my evening program
with each role doing different things.

Best,
Ron Blechner

On Sep 19, 2016 6:49 PM, "via Callers" 
wrote:

>
> Rich,
> I avoid many of the pit falls by not calling an "all modern" program
> (though I do not know to what venue, dance crowd you call for.)
> I like to mix in older unequal dances, Proper, Chestnuts, Classics
> Shadracks Delight
> Chorus Jig
> Nantucket Sleighride
> Becket Reel
> to name a few.
> (Lately I have become bored with dances that feel the same,
> Partner swing, Neighbor Swing, Chain, Hay)
> Check out some of the older tried and trues, You may be surprised!
>
> Gale Wood
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

[Callers] Fwd: dance caller desperately needed, please! - Vermont, Oct 8

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Forwarding with permission, since I am unavailable that weekend - any
caller available and interested in southwest VT dance - sounds like a barn
dance, family-friendly, etc - can reach out directly to Cynthia Larson,
email included below.

-- Forwarded message --
From: "Cynthia Larson" 
List-Post: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Date: Sep 19, 2016 1:54 PM
Subject: dance caller desperately needed, please!

... our annual family-style contra/ square dance on Sat, Oct 8. We have 2
musicians, but could flex if you have your own. Our usual caller is out of
town that day! We roast a steer, make cider, and have a charity auction
that day on the farm. Please let me know if this is possible, and if not,
please give me ideas! We pay our musicians. We usually dance from 7-10.
> We are in Wells, VT, SW Rutland county.
> Thank You!
> Cynthia Larson
> www.larsonfarmvt.com

Re: [Callers] ID this dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Gah.

N Bal, Box Gnat,
Star 3/4
Shadow Alle L 1x
PS
LLFB
Chain to N
R to P, Sq Thru 4

On Sep 18, 2016 4:07 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Sorry, star is 3/4
>
> On Sep 18, 2016 4:05 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:
>
>> Watching an old video of Gaslight Tinkers with Nils, from Nov 7, 2012
>>
>> N Bal, Gnat Gnat,
>> Star R 1x
>> -
>> Next N Alle L 1x
>> N1 swing
>> -
>> LLFB
>> Ladies Chain (to P)
>> -
>> R to P, Bal, Sq Thru 4 to new Ns.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Ron
>>
>

Re: [Callers] ID this dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Sorry, star is 3/4

On Sep 18, 2016 4:05 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Watching an old video of Gaslight Tinkers with Nils, from Nov 7, 2012
>
> N Bal, Gnat Gnat,
> Star R 1x
> -
> Next N Alle L 1x
> N1 swing
> -
> LLFB
> Ladies Chain (to P)
> -
> R to P, Bal, Sq Thru 4 to new Ns.
>
> Thanks!
> Ron
>

[Callers] ID this dance

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Watching an old video of Gaslight Tinkers with Nils, from Nov 7, 2012

N Bal, Gnat Gnat,
Star R 1x
-
Next N Alle L 1x
N1 swing
-
LLFB
Ladies Chain (to P)
-
R to P, Bal, Sq Thru 4 to new Ns.

Thanks!
Ron

Re: [Callers] Chains: the other side of the coin

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Tavi,

Thanks for opening discussion on this topic.

I'd like to propose that we call the move what it is: "chain", and we stop
calling left-hand chains as "gents chains" and right-hand chains as "ladies
chains" for two important reasons:

1. No other common move in contra has the role in the move. It's "chain",
being prompted to "ladies", the same way there's no difference between a
"gents allemande left" and a "ladies allemande left". In genderfree
contras, callers certainly don't prompt, "Rubies, ladies chain" - they swap
the role, because that's the role *prompt*, not actually part of the move
name.
2. For moves that have a left and right version, there are two conventions,
none of which "gents/ladies chain" follows. The conventions are:

A. Having two totally different move names. This is often ignored and
prompted like "left shoulder dosido" instead of see-saw, leading me to
think that having mirrored moves with different names is less useful than
the other convention...
B. The move name is the base, and the direction is a modifying prefix or
suffix to a prompt* Star, allemande, balance, etc. (Technically, the "hey"
as well, since you indicate who-passes-which-shoulder-first). Often, any of
these moves, once walked through, are prompted vanilla-flavored, without
the direction modifier, because the hand/direction is obvious. (Gents,
allemande left, pass your partner, hey for four...)

It seems intuitive then that "chain" falls into the latter category, and
should be treated as such.
The move is "chain", and there's a left and right handed version, and the
handedness is usually unnecessary because the role of the people doing it
will make the hand used to pull-by obvious. But for calling card notation,
the handedness is useful to notate.

...

As someone who's been writing and calling gents right-hand chain dances, I
see the pros and cons of the gents left-hand chain as follow:

Pros:
1. An extra move that can flow into a gents-pass-L / gents alle R / etc
next move - so there are new combinations to find.
2. More variation in general. More moves to play with.

Cons:
1. Another Clockwise-rotation move that is less usable than a
counter-clockwise move. A left-hand chain is simply not as useful as a
right-hand chain for this reason.
2. As Aahz pointed out, we're accustomed to twirling with right-hands, and
so left-hand twirling is new and unusual.
3. A right-hand chain is just ... a chain. And in dances where you get
role-swapping, you need to do zero-to-little teaching of a gents right-hand
chain.

So rather than promote the left-hand chain, I would broaden any support to
be for doing *all* chains.

Best,
Ron

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:38 PM, tavi merrill via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Sigh. Why is "join right with right in front, left hands behind the gent's
> back, gents walk forward and ladies back up" way more difficult than "join
> left with left in front, right hands behind the lady's back, ladies walk
> forward and gents back up"? It's not, but
>
> A numerical argument:
> Say in a typical evening of 13 dances, 6 dances include a ladies' chain,
> R through, or promenade across (wherein turning to face back in counts as
> a courtesy turn) and 2 more dances contain either two of one or one each of
> two. (I consider that a conservative estimate given the ubiquity of ladies'
> chains!) That makes 10 iterations of standard courtesy turn; if each
> sequence is run for an average of 8 minutes (16 iterations of the dance)
> that's 160 iterations of standard courtesy turn in a typical evening of
> dance.
>
> Now, since a small minority of callers ever get off their butt and use a
> gents LH chain (because it's soo difficult), let's say one gents
> chain shows up in every 10 evenings of dance we go to (this time, a very
> liberal estimate). Same assumptions of average dance run time, so that's 16
> iterations to practice the reverse courtesy turn.
>
> But since we danced ten evenings to get that one gents LH chain in, we had
> a whopping *1,600 iterations of practice for the standard courtesy turn
> to our 16 iterations of practice for the reverse*.
>
> The only real reason* the standard turn *seems* "easier" is because we
> get s---loads more practice at it! That will never change unless the
> reverse turn gets more use. It's hard because we so rarely do it, and we
> don't do it because it's hard. Great work everybody. Look at us exceeding
> our programming.
>
> Aahz, I would say the same for myself - a regular role-swapper, heavy-duty
> twirler in both roles, and "usually good about paying attention" - but I
> don't really care how often other callers dance both roles. The fact
> remains that many dancers don't, and of the dancers that don't, many lack
> the enhanced sensitivity to whether others want to be twirled that comes
> with being ambidancetrous. How aware we are is not an argument against the
> necessity of raising dancers' awareness. Let's elevate the 

Re: [Callers] This has to have been written

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

For the one in question, I've been told:
Together At Last by Beau Farmer
Is basically the same, but the progression is the star to next neighbor,
don't return to previous neighbor.

Related question:
Would it be awful for gents to allemande instead with the next gent on the
slight left, and ladies to join the hey, and have a progression there?

-R

On Aug 29, 2016 1:24 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> I'd like to give the choreographer credit:
>
> Becket contra:
> A1. Ladies Chain (to N) (8)
>Star L 1x (8)
> A2. Gypsy/Face-to-face/Spiral R Next N 1x (6)
>N1 Sw (10)
> B1. Gents Alle L 1.5 (8)
>1/2 Hey (PR, LL, NR, GL) (8)
> B2. P Gypsy + Swing (16)
>
> I have been poking at the idea of coming out of a star L, having a
> next-neighbor/shadow peek, and then returning to swing the person you
> starred with. (Thanks to the dance "Here's to the Ladies" for getting my
> gears going.)
>
> A more complex, partner heavy dance that I'm poking at:
>
> Becket contra
> A1. w/P pass thru across, turn left, single file to next (6)
>w/n2s Star L 1+1/4 (10) (til on side w/N, gents home side)
> A2. N3 Gypsy/F2F/Spiral Right 1x (6)
>N2 Swing (10)
> B1. Mad Robin (8) (CW, gents in front, same N2s)
>1/2 Hey (8/ (GL, PR, LL, NR)
> B2. G pass L (2)
>PS (14)
>
> In dance,
> Ron Blechner
>

[Callers] This has to have been written

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I'd like to give the choreographer credit:

Becket contra:
A1. Ladies Chain (to N) (8)
   Star L 1x (8)
A2. Gypsy/Face-to-face/Spiral R Next N 1x (6)
   N1 Sw (10)
B1. Gents Alle L 1.5 (8)
   1/2 Hey (PR, LL, NR, GL) (8)
B2. P Gypsy + Swing (16)

I have been poking at the idea of coming out of a star L, having a
next-neighbor/shadow peek, and then returning to swing the person you
starred with. (Thanks to the dance "Here's to the Ladies" for getting my
gears going.)

A more complex, partner heavy dance that I'm poking at:

Becket contra
A1. w/P pass thru across, turn left, single file to next (6)
   w/n2s Star L 1+1/4 (10) (til on side w/N, gents home side)
A2. N3 Gypsy/F2F/Spiral Right 1x (6)
   N2 Swing (10)
B1. Mad Robin (8) (CW, gents in front, same N2s)
   1/2 Hey (8/ (GL, PR, LL, NR)
B2. G pass L (2)
   PS (14)

In dance,
Ron Blechner

Re: [Callers] looking for notes

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Danced this Saturday, Will Mentor calling. This is a real good one!

Ron

On Aug 28, 2016 2:01 PM, "Martin Fager via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> All-
>
> I just got back from Pinewoods yesterday evening and am now going through
> emails.
>
> Marty Fager
>
> Balance and Bounce
>
> *Becket Formation Contra  by Marty Fager March, 2009 *
>
> *A1 C*ircle left *¾* to a wave/4 (right hand to *N*br*)
>
> Balance, walk forward to new wave/4
>
> *A2 *Balance, Ladies Allem Left halfway
>
> Ptnrs Allem Right *1&1/2*
>
> *B1* Half hey, gents pass left, ladies ricochet
>
> Neighbors swing
>
> *B2* Half hey, gents pass left, ladies ricochet
>
> Partners Swing
>
> *This borrows the A sections from Balance For Bubba by Bob Dalsemer.*
>
>
>
> * Women in the middle of the wave.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:55 AM, tavi merrill via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> it's easy to collect from this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>> v=C6LlCUhPwnM&
>>
>>
>>> Anybody have Marty Fager's "Balance and Bounce" handy?
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>> Kalia Kliban
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> End of Callers Digest, Vol 28, Issue 12
>>> ***
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Favorite dance to teach a ladies chain?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

What Maia listed is exactly how I teach the courtesy-turn moves. (I wonder
if Maia got it from me... I think I stole it as a combination from Peter
Stix and Jack Mitchell).

Without a beginner lesson, I teach the courtesy-turn in place, then add the
pull-by to the front of it. This also works to quickly teach a chain when
the gents role is doing it. ;)

My favorite basic chain-teach dances involve chaining to a neighbor*:
Baby Rose, David Kaynor
A Nice Combination, Gene Hubert
The Missing Piece, Bronwyn Woods (which may also go by another name. Chain
to balance, Petronellas)
Simplicity Swing, Becky Hill (only if the this is like, the third dance,
since it's a busy dance)
and mine, Mistakes Happen; Have Fun (I put in all of my beginner lesson
basic ingredients in it: circle, Alle N, star, chain, 2 swings)

Best,
Ron

* Unless the crowd is 99% experienced and I know new dancers are not
dancing with each other, then I may do it with a chain-to-partner.

On Aug 23, 2016 1:12 PM, "Maia McCormick via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Real interesting discussion! My two cents on the order of teaching: I've
> been having good luck lately with teaching in the following order--
> 1) promenade the ring
> 2) turn around to promenade the opposite direction (lady walks forward and
> gent walks back, i.e. CCW rotation--get everyone used to turning in the
> right direction)
> 3) promenade across the set ("gents, identify your own left shoulder. Now
> identify that other gent's left shoulder. That's how you're going to pass
> each other")
> 4) R/L through *with a demo*
> 5) ladies chain
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Aahz via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016, George Mercer via Callers wrote:
>> >
>> > Just a note: I always teach the right and left through. It is a
>> > simple move in the grand scheme, but it doesn't make much sense
>> > for beginners. Saying it is like a ladies chain only both dancers
>> > are crossing doesn't really help. Right-hand pull by across with
>> > the dancer directly across, then left-hands on the side and you
>> > courteously help each other turn via a courtesy turn.
>>
>> Most of my teaching has been in a square dance context, but I teach Pass
>> Thru, Courtesy Turn before I teach R Thru.  And I teach sashayed
>> Courtesy Turn -- probably wouldn't bother with that in a contra context.
>>
>> There's a regular argument in the square dance community about whether
>> it's better to teach the handed version or no-hands version of calls
>> first (e.g. California Twirl vs Partner Trade).  I overall favor the
>> handed calls first because it's better body flow and the guide makes it
>> easier to learn the call.  However, I switch with R Thru because
>> learning how to take and drop hands while passing is a bit of a tricky
>> skill for many people (the biggest culprit usually being Square Thru).
>> --
>> 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
>
>

Re: [Callers] Surely this already exists?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

It's also really similar to Tom Hinds' Frederick Contra (but only gents DSD
and order of moves is different) as well as Linda Leslie's Autumn Leaves
(but no allemande / chain).

I also dislike chain -> progress to balance; it never flows right for me as
a dancer. And it defeats the whole purpose of a glossary move dance if a
caller has to rely on doing the move (chain) in a way where one or both
role has to do it differently from almost every other time it's called.
Thus, what's the point of trying to teach a chain, if the caviat is "it'll
be different every other time".

The allemande to balance can be a reach, I agree. But since the do-si-do is
only really a 6 beat move, I like the allemande->do-si-do next progression
and think it's sufficiently glossary.

I just added Troxler to my box, but with the allemande variation.

Best,
Ron

On Aug 22, 2016 10:58 AM, "Luke Donforth via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Thank you to everyone who chimed in; fun to hear about all the versions
> and folks preferences.
>
> I, personally, am glad my (digital) box is big enough for all of the
> variations. I can see instances where I'd use any of them. With
> predominately new dancers on the first duple improper of the evening, I
> think the ladies on their own for an allemande would fare better than the
> "help" gents can give on the courtesy turn of a chain. I agree with Jack
> that chain->face new neighbor can be a tough transition. But Troxler's is
> straightforward enough that you could use it to focus on teaching a chain
> to new dancers; with a forgiving squishy entry into the DSD. And I haven't
> broken a hundred times yet with Nice Combination, but I'm sure I will.
>
> Thanks again. This discussion has even got me thinking about another thing
> I'd like to discuss on shared weight.
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Bob Isaacs  wrote:
>
>> Hi All:
>>
>>
>> While I appreciate Jack's comments about the chain/B progression, that
>> is more of a teaching issue than a choreographic one.  More important is
>> how much assistance those in the ladies role can get from their partner in
>> B2b.  In a chain they can get that from the joined hands in the long
>> lines.  But for the allemande L they need to let go from their partner and
>> are on their own.  That help would occur if Luke's dance finished with a
>> ladies allemande R 1 1/2, but that would not flow as well into the next
>> neighbor dosido.  So I'll stick with Nice Combo/Troxler's on the
>> Loose/Forgotten Treasure -
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Callers  on behalf of
>> Jack Mitchell via Callers 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2016 10:27 PM
>> *To:* Linda Leslie; Luke Donforth
>> *Cc:* Callers@Lists.Sharedweight.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Surely this already exists?
>>
>> Though I know that there are lots of traditional dances with a ladies
>> chain (turn away) new N, I am really not crazy about them.  OkI'll
>> admit it, I actively dislike them.  Particularly for new dancers, and
>> particularly going to a discrete move like a balance.  It requires the lady
>> to extricate themselves from a previous neighbor (who *should certainly
>> not* twirl and forget, but frequently does), and requires the (polite)
>> gent to turn away from their direction of progression to get new ladies
>> pointed in the right direction at the end of the courtesy turn before the
>> gent can progress (and for that matter, requires the courtesy turn to be
>> either done more quickly, or otherwise to be cut short to get everyone
>> going in the right direction.  (don't even get me started on dances that
>> have a butterfly whirl -> turn away to a new neighbor).   (There are dances
>> -- like Punctuated Raindrops -- that have that progression, that I will
>> still call a) because they're great dances other than that and b) because
>> the timing of the progression isn't discrete -- if you're late to start the
>> allemande L, it's ok, the timing will work out in the wash.)  
>>
>> The ladies allemande L progression, 1) puts the ladies in a bit more
>> control, 2) allows the caller to point out where they're going, and who
>> they're going to and 3) leaves a free hand available to reach out to the
>> new neighbor.  Even with similarities in the rest of the dance, I think
>> that is really enough to make it a distinct (and a more accessible) dance
>> from the ones mentioned.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 9:53 PM Linda Leslie via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This dance is virtually the same as Troxler’s on the Loose, by Chris
>>> Ricciotti. The only difference in Chris’ dance is that the final move is a
>>> ladies chain.
>>> Beth Parkes also wrote a dance that is mostly the same: Forgotten
>>> treasure. She begins the dance with a N B, and ends it with a chain as
>>> well.
>>> Linda
>>>

Re: [Callers] Is this dance already written?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Good points from Neal and Bev.

I'm curious now about the timing of the ladies casting over right shoulder
and entering the hey. It does seem like it would better fit the music.

RE: 3/8ths hey - there's a ton of dances with 3/8 hey called as half, as
the same hey can be different number of passes in different heys.

Anyway, now I really want to dance a star-cast-hey transition... :)

Ron

On Aug 11, 2016 3:57 PM, "Neal Schlein via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

Isn't it actually a 3/8ths hey?  ...Which is somewhat tricky to say: Three
Eights Hey For Four.  Lots of numbers in there.  Good enough reason to find
another explanation.  ;-)

What I'm seeing about not simply writing it out as a hey is that the star
is causing the ladies to move forward into the men's position.  From a
static perspective it is definitely a partial hey, but the women's momentum
will want to carry them too far forward and it'll become mush for anyone
not paying attention.  Turning back to the right is nice flow, and to me
there's nothing wrong with writing things like that into the dance.

For example, I have long used a dance which cues the ladies to turn AWAY
from a star and swing the man behind them.  Technically it is just a
u-turn, but every time I use that phrase three quarters of the ladies will
turn TOWARD the star (for a variety of reasons, including partner
"assistance").  It makes me cringe, because the dance is so much nicer if
they turn the other direction.

Neal

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

Re: [Callers] Is this dance already written?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Question:

The A2b: why not just "gents pull by L to start 1/2 a hey (GL, NR, LL, -) ?

Best,
Ron Blechner

On Aug 3, 2016 11:18 PM, "The Witful Turnip via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I just spent the weekend with Jo Mortland of Chicago, who wrote the dance
> below. She asked if there was a way to check if it, or something similar,
> was already written and I mentioned this list. Jo's not a subscriber but
> asked if I'd post it and report back. Please let me know. Thanks,
> Bev
>
> Dancing with a Pirate - Jo Mortland
> Counterclockwise Becket
>
> Begins in a ring of four
> A1
> Balance, spin right 1-1/2 to new Neighbors
> Balance, spin right
> (Lady is on gent's left)
>
> A2
> Hands across LH star
> Gents pull by L to opposite side
> While Ladies turn single to R
> Ladies cross passing left
>
> B1
> P B (opposite side of set)
>
> B2
> LLFB
> R thru, to original side of set
> End in a ring of 4
>
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Is this a new dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

For others interested.

On Jul 19, 2016 5:21 PM, "Chris Page" <chriscp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "The Merry-Go-Round", by Heiner Fischle, of all people.
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> > No, but the timing on the circles will confuse some.
> >
> > But if you want 2 long lines, DSD and swing with both partner and
> neighbor,
> > you could do:
> >
> > Duple Imp
> > A1. N DSD (6)
> >NS (10)
> > A2. LLFB (8)
> >Circle L 3/4 (8, forgiving)
> > B1. P DSD (6)
> >PS (10)
> > B2. LLFB (8)
> >Circle L 3/4, Pass Thru By R (6,2)
> >
> > So... has *this* already been written?
> > Similar to Greetings, by Tori Barrone.
> >
> > Ron Blechner
> >
> >
> > On Jul 19, 2016 4:54 PM, "via Callers" <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >  Not sure if this has already been written, but it fits a particular
> spot in
> > an upcoming program:
> >
> > A1 LL FB
> > Circle L 1.25 to face P on side
> >
> > A2 DSD P, Swing P
> > (or Balance and Swing P)
> >
> > B1 LL FB
> > Circle L .75 to face N on side
> >
> > B2 DSD N, Swing N
> > (or Balance and Swing N)
> >
> >  Thanks for any enlightenment!
> >
> > Ann in hot, humid, Annapolis, MD
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Is this a new dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

For reference, Greetings goes:

N B+S
LLFB
Ladies Alle 1.5
P B+S
LLFB
Circle L 3/4, pass thru.

On Jul 19, 2016 5:02 PM, wrote:

> No, but the timing on the circles will confuse some.
>
> But if you want 2 long lines, DSD and swing with both partner and
> neighbor, you could do:
>
> Duple Imp
> A1. N DSD (6)
>NS (10)
> A2. LLFB (8)
>Circle L 3/4 (8, forgiving)
> B1. P DSD (6)
>PS (10)
> B2. LLFB (8)
>Circle L 3/4, Pass Thru By R (6,2)
>
> So... has *this* already been written?
> Similar to Greetings, by Tori Barrone.
>
> Ron Blechner
>
> On Jul 19, 2016 4:54 PM, "via Callers" 
> wrote:
>
>  Not sure if this has already been written, but it fits a particular spot
> in an upcoming program:
>
> A1 LL FB
> Circle L 1.25 to face P on side
>
> A2 DSD P, Swing P
> (or Balance and Swing P)
>
> B1 LL FB
> Circle L .75 to face N on side
>
> B2 DSD N, Swing N
> (or Balance and Swing N)
>
>  Thanks for any enlightenment!
>
> Ann in hot, humid, Annapolis, MD
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>

Re: [Callers] Is this a new dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

No, but the timing on the circles will confuse some.

But if you want 2 long lines, DSD and swing with both partner and neighbor,
you could do:

Duple Imp
A1. N DSD (6)
   NS (10)
A2. LLFB (8)
   Circle L 3/4 (8, forgiving)
B1. P DSD (6)
   PS (10)
B2. LLFB (8)
   Circle L 3/4, Pass Thru By R (6,2)

So... has *this* already been written?
Similar to Greetings, by Tori Barrone.

Ron Blechner

On Jul 19, 2016 4:54 PM, "via Callers" 
wrote:

 Not sure if this has already been written, but it fits a particular spot
in an upcoming program:

A1 LL FB
Circle L 1.25 to face P on side

A2 DSD P, Swing P
(or Balance and Swing P)

B1 LL FB
Circle L .75 to face N on side

B2 DSD N, Swing N
(or Balance and Swing N)

 Thanks for any enlightenment!

Ann in hot, humid, Annapolis, MD

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

Re: [Callers] Box circulate dances

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

If you feel like mixing Box Circulate with Rory, here are two I've written
and called:

http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/117811884210/astral-navigation

http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/117812007820/playground-stomp

Bob Isaacs also has a really nice Rory/Box Circulate mix, which I don't
have the notes for.

On Jul 19, 2016 2:10 PM, "James Saxe via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I believe that the first contra to use a box circulate was
> "The Twenty-Fourth of June" by Steve Schnur.  See
>
>
> https://www.cambridgefolk.org.uk/contra/dances/steve_schnur/twenty_fourth_of_june.html
>
> --Jim
>
> > On Jul 18, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Vicki Morrison via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all. In addition to the lovely Du Quoin Races dance by Orace
> Johnson, are you familiar with any other box circulate dances that you
> could share? Thanks!
> >
> > Vicki Morrison
> > Tallahassee, FL
> > ___
> > 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] Rorys + Grand R+L?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I like these two at a glance; I'll take a closer look later. Thank you.

At the same time, I was asking for pulling by both ways, not just one way,
so more suggestions still welcome.
On Jun 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Bob Isaacs"  wrote:

Ron and All:

I hope this isn't too weird for you.  It adapted the diagonal Rory spins
first seen in Bill Olson's Eleanor's Reel into a single progression dance:

Let It Flow
Becket-L
Bob Isaacs, 7/26/04


A1.  8  L diagonal circle L ¾
2,2,4N1 pull by R, N2 pull by L, N3 allemande R ¾ to wave/4
(1)

A2.  4,4   Balance R and L, spin R forward to wave/4 w/N2
(2)
4,4   Balance L and R, spin L forward

B1.  4,12 N1 balance, swing

B2.  4  Give and take to gent’s side
12Partner swing


(1) – With gents taking L hands in the center and N3 keeping R hands on the
side.

(2) – With ladies taking R hands in the center and N2 taking L hands on the
side.

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eMPU6Enh-M*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LecYtmgdLLE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ZneH9zwsw

Bob

--
List-Post: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:34:47 -0400
To: call...@sharedweight.net
Subject: [Callers] Rorys + Grand R+L?
From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net


Any contra dances out there with a grand right and left around the set and
Rory OMoore spins? (Standard 32bar, nothing too weird)

I thought I've danced one that went something like:

Indecent
A1. N1 Pull by R, N2 Pull by L, N3 Pull by R, N4 Alle L 1x, N3 by R, form
wavy lines with N2, LH to N2, ladies in center.
A2. Bal, Spin L, Bal, Spin R ...

Then something? Maybe ladies spin all the way across on that second spin,
B+S partner, circle, do-si-do?

Or maybe the pull-bys go back to N1, and RH to N1 in waves?

Thanks,
Ron Blechner

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

[Callers] Rorys + Grand R+L?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Any contra dances out there with a grand right and left around the set and
Rory OMoore spins? (Standard 32bar, nothing too weird)

I thought I've danced one that went something like:

Indecent
A1. N1 Pull by R, N2 Pull by L, N3 Pull by R, N4 Alle L 1x, N3 by R, form
wavy lines with N2, LH to N2, ladies in center.
A2. Bal, Spin L, Bal, Spin R ...

Then something? Maybe ladies spin all the way across on that second spin,
B+S partner, circle, do-si-do?

Or maybe the pull-bys go back to N1, and RH to N1 in waves?

Thanks,
Ron Blechner

Re: [Callers] Gents doing "ladies" chain

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I was overdue actually publishing my Gents right-hand chain dances. I wrote
a bunch, settled on 5 that I liked, have called 2 of them so far:

http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/145541215310/gents-right-hand-chains

Re: [Callers] ID This dance? Square thru, shadow DsD

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I believe it's Luke Donforth's "Vallimont's Silver Hammer".
On Jun 2, 2016 6:30 PM, "Jack Mitchell via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Spotted on a video earlier today.
>
> A1 Circle L 3/4, N Sw
> A2 N Promenade, Ladies Chain
> B1 RH to N balace, N pull by R, Partner pull by L; Shadow DsD
> B2 P B
>
> --
> Jack Mitchell
> Durham, NC
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] here it is - sorry

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I'm really tired of personal attacks here on Shared Weight, and a high
percentage comes from one person.

I've asked Michael Fuerst to not contact me again. I've already cut down my
usage, but if we can't trade ideas without having them called "bizarre" and
"absurd", then this list isn't working.
On Apr 4, 2016 1:56 AM, "Michael Fuerst"  wrote:

> Ron:
>
> "we're comparing our having fun traveling to various dances to the
> widespread persecution of an ethnicity (the worst being the Holocaust)."
>
> Maybe you do.   No one else uses such  bizarre logic.
> Conbtradancers as a group are about as left of center  and
> non-discriminatory in their beliefs as any non-political group gets.
> Your suggestion is absurd
>
>
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 5844
>
>
> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 8:38 PM, Ron Blechner 
> wrote:
>
>
> That article had a few interesting *new* points, for me.
> 1. That Roma are in the US, not just Europe, and face continued
> discrimination.
> 2. That Roma in the US often don't speak up about their identity out of
> fear of discrimination.
> 3. That perhaps the use of "gypsy" as a term isn't as bad as non-Roma
> self-identitying as "dance gypsies". Roma wander because they are
> persecuted or can't find work. When we talk about "dance gypsies" beig
> wandering from place to place, we're comparing our having fun traveling to
> various dances to the widespread persecution of an ethnicity (the worst
> being the Holocaust).
> On Apr 1, 2016 10:03 AM, "via Callers" 
> wrote:
>
> I was thinking that very thing, but didn't have any experiences.
> Something I read recently pointed out that Romani people in Spain proudly
> refer to themselves as "Gitano" which translates to Gypsy.
> This is issue is not as cut and dry as many of us would like it to be.
> Thanks for sharing this story.
>
> **
> Amy Carroll
> a...@calleramy.com
> 206-330-7408
> http://www.calleramy.com/
>
>
> On April 1, 2016 at 9:02 AM Rich Sbardella 
> wrote:
>
> There are still at least two sides to this argument.  Although I am using
> the term less and less, I want to relate a recent experience.
>
> I was dancing in one of MA biggest contra venues as a caller walked the a
> dance with a "two eyed" turn.  A dancer in my line became more than a
> little upset, yelling it "it's a gypsy".  Turns out the dancer is Romani,
> and the term "gypsy" is one he proudly owns.
>
> I do not think the Roma people as a whole have come to a consensus.   (For
> example, The Gypsy Kings proudly use the term as a reference to their
> heritage.)
>
> Rich Stafford
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Michael Fuerst via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Ms Carroll:
>
> Quite frankly a fairly useless article for us.
> Ms Raessi is "a Romani/Métis researcher and activist" so it seems logical
> that she dislikes the term gypsy.
> She  lists alleged myths stereotypes about Romani people
> Every ethnic group has an associated set of  myths and stereotypes.
> Every ethnic group tries to purge the negative stereotypes and retain the
> positive aspects of their heritage.
> Ms Raessi writes "many people find that using this term is wrong because
> it perpetuates misinformation about our origins"
> This makes little sense. Anyone person bigoted enough to entertain
> any of her alleged stereotypes has no idea about the origins of Romani
> people.
>
> Ms Raessi writes  "...the term has been used as a racial slur and is
> loaded with stereotypes ..."
> Yes the word gypsy has been used to deprecate Romani people but over the
> years it evolved  to mean a free-spirited or nomadic person.
> Other ethnic slurs (such as kike, chink, jap or nigger) have not similarly
> evolved, and thus their use remains offensive.
> This article discusses some  English words or idioms that evolved from
> ethnic slurs:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/offensive-words-_n_4144472.html
>
> The ongoing discussion during the past year of the word gypsy has included
> claims that some persons of  Romani descent embrace gypsy and its positive
> aspects of current usage,  most don't care, and some hate the word.   And
> of course only those who object will speak out.
> As long the common usage of  gypsy keeps evolving towards a free-spirited
> or nomadic person, keeping it in the contra lexicon seems appropriate
>
>
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 584
>
>
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:32 PM, via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> http://bellydanceu.net/culture/520/
> "What's wrong with the Word 'Gypsy'?"
>
> **
> Amy Carroll
> a...@calleramy.com
> 206-330-7408
> 

Re: [Callers] here it is - sorry

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

That article had a few interesting *new* points, for me.

1. That Roma are in the US, not just Europe, and face continued
discrimination.
2. That Roma in the US often don't speak up about their identity out of
fear of discrimination.
3. That perhaps the use of "gypsy" as a term isn't as bad as non-Roma
self-identitying as "dance gypsies". Roma wander because they are
persecuted or can't find work. When we talk about "dance gypsies" beig
wandering from place to place, we're comparing our having fun traveling to
various dances to the widespread persecution of an ethnicity (the worst
being the Holocaust).
On Apr 1, 2016 10:03 AM, "via Callers" 
wrote:

> I was thinking that very thing, but didn't have any experiences.
> Something I read recently pointed out that Romani people in Spain proudly
> refer to themselves as "Gitano" which translates to Gypsy.
>
> This is issue is not as cut and dry as many of us would like it to be.
>
> Thanks for sharing this story.
>
>
> **
> Amy Carroll
> a...@calleramy.com
> 206-330-7408
> http://www.calleramy.com/
>
>
>
> On April 1, 2016 at 9:02 AM Rich Sbardella 
> wrote:
>
> There are still at least two sides to this argument.  Although I am using
> the term less and less, I want to relate a recent experience.
>
> I was dancing in one of MA biggest contra venues as a caller walked the a
> dance with a "two eyed" turn.  A dancer in my line became more than a
> little upset, yelling it "it's a gypsy".  Turns out the dancer is Romani,
> and the term "gypsy" is one he proudly owns.
>
> I do not think the Roma people as a whole have come to a consensus.   (For
> example, The Gypsy Kings proudly use the term as a reference to their
> heritage.)
>
> Rich Stafford
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Michael Fuerst via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Ms Carroll:
>
> Quite frankly a fairly useless article for us.
> Ms Raessi is "a Romani/Métis researcher and activist" so it seems logical
> that she dislikes the term gypsy.
> She  lists alleged myths stereotypes about Romani people
> Every ethnic group has an associated set of  myths and stereotypes.
> Every ethnic group tries to purge the negative stereotypes and retain the
> positive aspects of their heritage.
> Ms Raessi writes "many people find that using this term is wrong because
> it perpetuates misinformation about our origins"
> This makes little sense. Anyone person bigoted enough to entertain
> any of her alleged stereotypes has no idea about the origins of Romani
> people.
>
> Ms Raessi writes  "...the term has been used as a racial slur and is
> loaded with stereotypes ..."
> Yes the word gypsy has been used to deprecate Romani people but over the
> years it evolved  to mean a free-spirited or nomadic person.
> Other ethnic slurs (such as kike, chink, jap or nigger) have not similarly
> evolved, and thus their use remains offensive.
> This article discusses some  English words or idioms that evolved from
> ethnic slurs:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/offensive-words-_n_4144472.html
>
> The ongoing discussion during the past year of the word gypsy has included
> claims that some persons of  Romani descent embrace gypsy and its positive
> aspects of current usage,  most don't care, and some hate the word.   And
> of course only those who object will speak out.
> As long the common usage of  gypsy keeps evolving towards a free-spirited
> or nomadic person, keeping it in the contra lexicon seems appropriate
>
>
> Michael Fuerst  802 N Broadway  Urbana IL 61801  217 239 584
>
>
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:32 PM, via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> http://bellydanceu.net/culture/520/
> "What's wrong with the Word 'Gypsy'?"
>
> **
> Amy Carroll
> a...@calleramy.com
> 206-330-7408
> http://www.calleramy.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
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] New dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Let me rephrase:

Is there a precedent for naming a dance after a living politician?
On Mar 28, 2016 10:29 AM, "Don Veino" <sharedweight_...@veino.com> wrote:

> Jefferson and Liberty.
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I have another question to pose:
>>
>> Is there precedent for naming a dance after a politician?
>>
>> While I may have voted for Bernie, I'm careful to not inject my political
>> view into my calling / choreography. (Though, on the other hand, if Bernie
>> doesn't win the nomination, in 5 years dancers will just hear "feel the
>> burn".)
>>
>> In Dance,
>> Ron Blechner
>> On Mar 27, 2016 8:24 AM, "Pat Hoekje via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I am trying to visualize the circle R to star R with new neighbor from
>>> the women's place and I have to turn around (or drop from the circle right
>>> a bit early to star right with the next neighbor.  What am I not seeing
>>> correctly or is that true?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 4:22 AM, Amy Wimmer via Callers <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom and Erik are quite right about that swing. It lasts FOREVER, which
>>> is a little too long.  I took Michael's suggestion and started at A2.
>>> I also took Michael's suggestion of turning the allemande into a
>>> two-eyed turn (an "eye-lemande" as my friend Matthew coined). Thank
>>> you for the suggestions for changing that bit.
>>>
>>> Two callers danced it tonight. One (my husband, Tom) thought the flow
>>> was good, but the swing was definitely too long. The other caller said
>>> she really liked that the mad robin wasn't with your partner, which
>>> she said tends to make a dance seem very partner-only-centric,
>>> ignoring the neighbors. She agreed with me that I need to figure out a
>>> better way to teach it. One of the band members noticed the long swing
>>> and said it needs some other element to break it up.
>>>
>>> This particular dance community has lots of beginners and folks who
>>> just don't dance very well. It took them a while to get the circle
>>> right-to star right transition. Tom thought that part was simple. He
>>> noticed that when one is out at the ends one should not cross over,
>>> but should stand "proper."
>>>
>>> I very much appreciate your input, guys. Next time I'll try some more
>>> of your ideas.
>>>
>>> -Amy
>>>
>>> > On Mar 26, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Tom Hinds <twhi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Nice dance Amy.  I really like the sequence of moves.
>>> > I'm trying to imagine this in my head and assume that the allemande
>>> right is once around which takes less than 8 beats to do.
>>> >
>>> > Hope you don't mind suggesting a change.  I would change the allemande
>>> right to once and a half.  That would give us:
>>> >
>>> > B2neighbor allemande right 1 1/2
>>> >ladies ric.  men pass left
>>> >
>>> > T
>>> >
>>> ___
>>> 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] New dance?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I have another question to pose:

Is there precedent for naming a dance after a politician?

While I may have voted for Bernie, I'm careful to not inject my political
view into my calling / choreography. (Though, on the other hand, if Bernie
doesn't win the nomination, in 5 years dancers will just hear "feel the
burn".)

In Dance,
Ron Blechner
On Mar 27, 2016 8:24 AM, "Pat Hoekje via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I am trying to visualize the circle R to star R with new neighbor from the
> women's place and I have to turn around (or drop from the circle right a
> bit early to star right with the next neighbor.  What am I not seeing
> correctly or is that true?
>
> Thanks,
> Pat
>
>
> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 4:22 AM, Amy Wimmer via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> Tom and Erik are quite right about that swing. It lasts FOREVER, which
> is a little too long.  I took Michael's suggestion and started at A2.
> I also took Michael's suggestion of turning the allemande into a
> two-eyed turn (an "eye-lemande" as my friend Matthew coined). Thank
> you for the suggestions for changing that bit.
>
> Two callers danced it tonight. One (my husband, Tom) thought the flow
> was good, but the swing was definitely too long. The other caller said
> she really liked that the mad robin wasn't with your partner, which
> she said tends to make a dance seem very partner-only-centric,
> ignoring the neighbors. She agreed with me that I need to figure out a
> better way to teach it. One of the band members noticed the long swing
> and said it needs some other element to break it up.
>
> This particular dance community has lots of beginners and folks who
> just don't dance very well. It took them a while to get the circle
> right-to star right transition. Tom thought that part was simple. He
> noticed that when one is out at the ends one should not cross over,
> but should stand "proper."
>
> I very much appreciate your input, guys. Next time I'll try some more
> of your ideas.
>
> -Amy
>
> > On Mar 26, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Tom Hinds  wrote:
> >
> > Nice dance Amy.  I really like the sequence of moves.
> > I'm trying to imagine this in my head and assume that the allemande
> right is once around which takes less than 8 beats to do.
> >
> > Hope you don't mind suggesting a change.  I would change the allemande
> right to once and a half.  That would give us:
> >
> > B2neighbor allemande right 1 1/2
> >ladies ric.  men pass left
> >
> > T
> >
> ___
> 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] This dance or something like it?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Pointed out by another caller, a close one with a bit tighter timing, and a
promenade rather than a chain:

Dick and Mary's Departure (for Dick and Mary Ashbrook)
Jan Larsen
Duple, improper
A1 Neighbor allemande right 1 ½,
  Men allemande left 1 ½
A2 *Partner balance and swing ( *alt: gypsy and swing)
B1 Ladies allemande right 1 ½
  Swing your neighbor
B2 Half promenade,
  Left hand star

... I'll probably add this one to my easy dances as well.

Ron
On Mar 24, 2016 6:27 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Alternatively,
> A1: Gents Alle L 1x.
>
> Or gents gypsy left.
>
> But there's got to be a hundred good dances with a Do-si-do to swing.
> On Mar 23, 2016 11:43 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:
>
>> For a while I've wanted a dance with:
>> - easy difficulty
>> - 2 swings
>> - a courtesy turn (promenade or chain)
>> - everyone allemandes
>> - a star
>> - Ideally ladies doing one move together and gents doing one move
>> together.
>> - timing that isn't tight (Dayton 1.5 by Perry Shafran came very close,
>> and I use that, but doesn't leave quite enough wiggle room for too many new
>> dancers.)
>>
>>
>> Basically, A Nice Combination / Simplicity Swing / The Baby Rose but with
>> an everyone-allemandes.
>>
>> I was stumped. If you have a suggestion, I'm ears!
>>
>> This is what I've worked together. I called it last Friday at Greenfield,
>> MA, with maybe 15% new dancers, and it worked well.
>>
>> Mistakes Happen, Have Fun
>> Ron T Blechner
>> Start: Duple Imp.
>> Difficulty: Easy
>>
>> A1. Gents DSD 1x (6)
>>NS (10)
>> A2. Circle L 3/4 (6)
>>PS (10)
>> B1. LLFB (8)
>>Ladies Chain (8) (to N)
>> B2. Star L 1x (8) (to Next N)
>>(Next) N Alle R 1.5x (8) (until gents face in)*
>>
>> * Technically, this dance is a reverse progression indecent dance. But
>> don't tell the dancers this. It can be lined up improper and taught
>> normally.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>

Re: [Callers] This dance or something like it?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Alternatively,
A1: Gents Alle L 1x.

Or gents gypsy left.

But there's got to be a hundred good dances with a Do-si-do to swing.
On Mar 23, 2016 11:43 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> For a while I've wanted a dance with:
> - easy difficulty
> - 2 swings
> - a courtesy turn (promenade or chain)
> - everyone allemandes
> - a star
> - Ideally ladies doing one move together and gents doing one move together.
> - timing that isn't tight (Dayton 1.5 by Perry Shafran came very close,
> and I use that, but doesn't leave quite enough wiggle room for too many new
> dancers.)
>
>
> Basically, A Nice Combination / Simplicity Swing / The Baby Rose but with
> an everyone-allemandes.
>
> I was stumped. If you have a suggestion, I'm ears!
>
> This is what I've worked together. I called it last Friday at Greenfield,
> MA, with maybe 15% new dancers, and it worked well.
>
> Mistakes Happen, Have Fun
> Ron T Blechner
> Start: Duple Imp.
> Difficulty: Easy
>
> A1. Gents DSD 1x (6)
>NS (10)
> A2. Circle L 3/4 (6)
>PS (10)
> B1. LLFB (8)
>Ladies Chain (8) (to N)
> B2. Star L 1x (8) (to Next N)
>(Next) N Alle R 1.5x (8) (until gents face in)*
>
> * Technically, this dance is a reverse progression indecent dance. But
> don't tell the dancers this. It can be lined up improper and taught
> normally.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron
>
>

Re: [Callers] This dance or something like it?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi Aahz,

I wonder at your reasoning. Do you mean for 8-beat musical phrasing? While
that's nice, having dancers do something new every 8 beats can leave little
room for mistakes. And mistakes happen. ;)

Not a fan of Gene Hubert's A Nice Combination, then? 6-beat circle Left 3/4
to swing in that, too (even shorter if you consider it follows returning up
the hall in a line of four, which dancers are likely to get their early
when bending the line).

Also, most new dancers have trouble doing a do-si-do 1.5x in 8 beats, and
while a do-si-do 1x is technically 6 beats in most dances,  dances like
David Kaynor's The Baby Rose use that extra time to make it flexible for
both experienced and newer dancers. (As an aside, it's why I always change
DSD 1.5x to next N progressions to Pass-Thru, DSD 1x with Next N).

Best,
Ron
On Mar 24, 2016 11:10 AM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
> >
> > A1. Gents DSD 1x (6)
> >NS (10)
> > A2. Circle L 3/4 (6)
> >PS (10)
>
> Not thrilled.  Make each figure eight beats and I'm happy.
> --
> 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] This dance or something like it?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

For a while I've wanted a dance with:
- easy difficulty
- 2 swings
- a courtesy turn (promenade or chain)
- everyone allemandes
- a star
- Ideally ladies doing one move together and gents doing one move together.
- timing that isn't tight (Dayton 1.5 by Perry Shafran came very close, and
I use that, but doesn't leave quite enough wiggle room for too many new
dancers.)


Basically, A Nice Combination / Simplicity Swing / The Baby Rose but with
an everyone-allemandes.

I was stumped. If you have a suggestion, I'm ears!

This is what I've worked together. I called it last Friday at Greenfield,
MA, with maybe 15% new dancers, and it worked well.

Mistakes Happen, Have Fun
Ron T Blechner
Start: Duple Imp.
Difficulty: Easy

A1. Gents DSD 1x (6)
   NS (10)
A2. Circle L 3/4 (6)
   PS (10)
B1. LLFB (8)
   Ladies Chain (8) (to N)
B2. Star L 1x (8) (to Next N)
   (Next) N Alle R 1.5x (8) (until gents face in)*

* Technically, this dance is a reverse progression indecent dance. But
don't tell the dancers this. It can be lined up improper and taught
normally.

Thanks,

Ron

[Callers] Best gigs

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

What makes for your "best" calling gigs?

Measure any way you'd like... size, money, people, musicians, friends,
dancers, community, etc. Been thinking about this for a while and
reflecting myself, and wanted to hear what other callers think.

In dance,
Ron Blechner

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
>
>

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" <clidas...@gmail.com> 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 eve

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 <contra...@gmail.com> 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" <contra...@gmail.com> 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, <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 <
>>&g

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.
>>>
>>> Li

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" <contra...@gmail.com> 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, <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.

[Callers] Fwd: Petronella spin, no chain or allemande?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Thanks for all the suggestions, all.

Heartbeat Contra is a very good one, a favorite of many, and in my box. I
guess I should have specified "no gypsy" as well.

I have Newlywed's Jig - perhaps I don't call that enough.

Petronella’s Pin and Fun With Alex seem like no-brainers to add, and Love
at First Swing as a nice fairly-easy-but-something-unusual dance. (I
personally don't like the petronella-to-swing, sorry Bob!)

Anything with 4 Petronella spins doesn't really fit my programming style.

Best,
Ron


-- Forwarded message --
From: Linda Leslie <laleslie...@comcast.net>
List-Post: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Date: Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Callers] Petronella spin, no chain or allemande?
To: Ron Blechner <contra...@gmail.com>
Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>


Here are a couple for you.
Warmly, Linda


*Petronella’s Pin*
by Dave Colestock
Contra/Improper/Easy

A1 ---
Ring Balance, Petronella spin
Ring Balance, Petronell spin
A2 ---
Ring Balance
Neighbor swing
B1 ---
Give & Take to ladies side & swing
B2 ---
Circle left three-quarters
Ring Balance
Pass thru

*Newlywed's Jig*
by Mark Widmer
Contra/Improper/Easy

A1 ---
Long Lines Forward and Back
Neighbor Swing
A2 ---
Circle left three-quarters
Gents do si do*
B1 ---
Partner Balance and Swing
B2 ---
Ring Balance, Pet Twirl
Ring Balance
Ladies roll away with a half sashay with neighbor (to the left)

*Love at First Swing*
by Bob Isaacs
Contra/Improper/Easy

A1 ---
(8) Balance the ring and twirl to the right
(8) Balance the ring and twirl to the right
A2 ---
Balance the Ring
California Twirl
New Neighbor swing
B1 ---
Circle Left 3/4
Partner swing
B2 ---
Down the hall, four in line
Gent #2 Right hand high, left low, gent 1 TA
Return*  (bend the line and restart the dance with these N’s)

*Lanny's Back*
by Erik Weberg
Contra/Improper/Int

A1 ---
Neghbor gypsy  (Or B)
(8) Neighbor swing


A2 ---
(8) Circle Left 3/4
(8) Partner swing
B1 ---
Ring Balance
Ladies cross by the right
Ring Balance
Gents cross by the right
B2 ---
Ring Balance
Petronella twirl
Ring Balance
California Twirl

*Fun with Alex*
by Linda Leslie
Contra/Becket-CW/Int

A1 ---
Long lines forward & back
Circle left three-quarters (Flatten to a wave)
A2 ---
Balance the wave
Walk forward
New Neighbor swing (face across)
B1 ---
Ring Balance
Partner roll away across the ring
Ring Balance   Petronella twirl
B2 ---
Partner Balance & Swing

*Cure for the Claps,The*
by Bob Isaacs
Contra/Improper/Easy-Int

A1 ---
Ring Balance, Petronella twirl
Partner Swing
A2 ---
Ring Balance, Petronella twirl
Neighbor Swing
B1 ---
Four in line down the hall, turn alone, return
B2 ---
Circle left once
Ring Balance
California Twirl

On Dec 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

Any suggestions for your favorite easy or intermediate Petronella spin
dance with no chain, no allemandes?

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

Re: [Callers] As in Petronella

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Many callers forget that Petronella is spin-then-balance, and most modern
"Petronella dances" are balance-then-spin".

So saying, "as in Petronella, balance and spin/move one place to the right"
is not accurate either.

More accurate: "Balance the ring, and as in Petronella, spin/move one place
to the right."

(And the difference also can explain why people clap. The chestnut
Petronella has the stomping on the last beats, whereas there's a
stompy-sized hole at the end of modern balance-then-spin Petronella dances.)

On Dec 15, 2015 2:09 PM, "Bill Olson via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Erik and all, heh heh, I often chuckle at MYSELF when I find myself
saying that same thing: "as in Petronella", when I realize very few of the
dancers have ever danced Petronella.. BUT, after trying to teach the move
with out saying the "P word", I realized that some of the dancers at least
know what the move is and having a percentage of the dancers "doing the
right thing" helps the others., especially those who learn by seeing as
opposed to having something "explained"... (with rights and lefts in it
ugh).. I've found saying: "balance the ring and move one place to the right
while pivoting over your right shoulder" doesn't always get everyone doing
the same thing (hah!), if it doesn't actually freeze some dancers in their
tracks!!
>
> Now I hear newer callers saying stuff like "balance the ring and
Petronella to the right" or "balance left and Rory to the left". Making new
verbs out of these proper names.. well, whatever works!!!
>
> bill

[Callers] Petronella spin, no chain or allemande?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Any suggestions for your favorite easy or intermediate Petronella spin
dance with no chain, no allemandes?

Thanks,
Ron Blechner

Re: [Callers] Becket Formation

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Sorry, I meant Rich.
On Dec 10, 2015 3:54 PM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

> Whoa. Weird story, Mac. Baffled
> On Dec 10, 2015 3:30 PM, "Mac Mckeever via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> The only thing I can imagine is that many Becket dances leave the minor
>> set - making them slightly more complex.  Perhaps they had some bad
>> experiences with a couple dances and haven't given them another chance.
>>
>> They seem to be different - even though they really aren't - maybe they
>> are just more comfortable with what they are used to.
>>
>> I would think a Becket is a good choice for a final dance because they
>> can end with a partner swing - an nice way to end the last dance.
>>
>> Mac McKeever
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Bill Olson via Callers 
>> *To:* Caller's discussion list 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
>>
>> Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
>>
>> bill
>>
>> --
>> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
>> To: call...@sharedweight.net
>> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
>> From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>
>>
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
>> dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
>> Becket formation.  One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
>> the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
>> they do not like Beckets.
>>
>> Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
>> Beckets in a contra  evening.  Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
>> formation among many dancers?  If so, can someone explain the reason?
>>
>> Rich
>>
>> ___ 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] Becket Formation

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Whoa. Weird story, Mac. Baffled
On Dec 10, 2015 3:30 PM, "Mac Mckeever via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> The only thing I can imagine is that many Becket dances leave the minor
> set - making them slightly more complex.  Perhaps they had some bad
> experiences with a couple dances and haven't given them another chance.
>
> They seem to be different - even though they really aren't - maybe they
> are just more comfortable with what they are used to.
>
> I would think a Becket is a good choice for a final dance because they can
> end with a partner swing - an nice way to end the last dance.
>
> Mac McKeever
>
> --
> *From:* Bill Olson via Callers 
> *To:* Caller's discussion list 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:20 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Becket Formation
>
> Wow, maybe that couple didn't actually know what Becket Formation was?
>
> bill
>
> --
> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:45:17 -0500
> To: call...@sharedweight.net
> Subject: [Callers] Becket Formation
> From: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
> I was at a dance not too long ago, and as the caller (not me) invited
> dancers to join the last dance of the night, he also declared it to be in
> Becket formation.  One visiting couple, who had been waiting eagerly for
> the last dance , put on their jackets and left disappointed, stating that
> they do not like Beckets.
>
> Perhaps because I am a square dance caller, I tend to program about 40%
> Beckets in a contra  evening.  Is there a negative sentiment about Becket
> formation among many dancers?  If so, can someone explain the reason?
>
> Rich
>
> ___ 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] Contras with a Hey

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Give the Scout a Hand, Bob Isaacs

I'll second:
Butter
Carousel
Hey the the Barn
Roll in the Hey
On Dec 8, 2015 2:10 PM, "David A Kaynor via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> A longtime lurker leaps in:
>
> Below:  Two fairly easy Becket formation dances which present a full hay
> for four following a full ladies’ chain … a useful sequence from a
> pedagogical standpoint, in my opinion.
>
> First, Peter Stix’s “Purple Hays” (Becket formation)
>
> A1:  Ladies chain (over and back)
>
> A2:  Hay for four (over and back)
>
> B1:  Ladies 1/2 [your politically/socially acceptable term for “gypsy”];
> swing partner
>
> B2:  1/2 right and left; circle left 1/2 to original Becket home; with
> partner, slide left.
>
>
> Here are Peter’s A parts followed by different B parts (Lindsey Dono told
> me that a dancer suggested this dance be called “Busy Bees”)
>
> A1:  Ladies chain (over and back)
>
> A2:  Hay for four (over and back)
>
> B1:  with Partner, balance and swing
>
> B2:  long lines forward & back; circle left (all the way around); with
> partner, shift left to new neighbors.
>
>
> Note:  On paper, there isn’t sufficient time for all of B2.  However, in
> actual practice, the transition from the circle and shift to the ladies’
> chain is forgiving enough for things to flow well.
>
> I believe my B parts to be a little easier for bringing newcomers along.
> To my knowledge, no contra prior to “Purple Hays” used this sequence of A
> parts.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:50 PM, susanelberger via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> > Washington Hay by Ralph Sweet is my go-to dance for teaching a hay to
> relatively new dancers.
> >
> > Susan Elberger
> >
> > From: Rich Sbardella via Callers 
> > To: Caller's discussion list ;
> trad-dance-call...@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 12:48 PM
> > Subject: [Callers] Contras with a Hey
> >
> > Hello Folks,
> >
> > I am relatively new at calling contras and I am looking for some asy to
> intermediate contras to introduce the hey to a group that includes many
> beginners. and/or club square dancers.
> >
> > "Butter" by Gene Hubert is my go to dance, but I am looking for a few
> more.  I like Butter because the flow from ladies chain into a RH hey is
> great, and because all the other calls are introduced earlier in most
> evening.
> >
> > I love simple, but different choreography, so I am open to most
> suggestions.
> >
> > Rich Sbardella
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] woodrow wilson

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Kind of missing the connection.
On Nov 26, 2015 4:02 PM, "jean francis via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> absolutely excellent article; thanks Michael. I was, in a past life, a
> "Woodrow Wilson fellow" at Princeton and never knew this but I surely agree
> with the articles conclusion (and its relevance to the gypsy discussion)
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Gypsy perception

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Donald,

I am reading your comments as an attempt solely at shutting up other
people. Is this your intent? It also comes off pretty passive aggressive.
That is *not* appreciated and *not* helpful.

Disagree all you like, but if you don't want to participate in a
discussion, please don't interfere with others who do.

Respectfully,
Ron Blechner
On Nov 3, 2015 9:06 AM, "Donald Perley via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Aahz Maruch via Callers
>
> > I have to admit that technically your argument is correct WRT me, but
> > that's because I haven't been contra dancing at all (except for Queer
> > Contra Dance Camp).  Instead, I've been focusing my time/energy on
> > learning to call MWSD, which leaves this as my only outlet for contra
> > dancing.  ;-)
>
> Like I said, more into the crusade than the dance.
>
> While we're at it, more offensive terms that may need replacing:
>
> Chain - represents slavery
> Cast(e) - discrimination affecting a billion Indians
> Swing - derogatory term for swapping sexual partners.
>
> I notice that in quotes from the original complainant who spurred this
> subject, he never claimed to be Roma himself, and it was a little
> unclear whether he was more offended by just the term gypsy, or the
> implication that same-gender gypsies would be flirting with each
> other.
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Gypsy / "Redneck"/honky

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Tom,

I find it humorous that we both had the same thought experiment. I read
"honky" as less offensive than "redneck", but that may be subjective and/or
semantic.

To be very plain:

The image we conjure up of a "gypsy" is a stereotype. "Gypsy" for many
invokes images of coin hip scarves and veils and brightly painted caravans.
Mysterious women. Homeless vagrants who are selling snake oil. Fire eaters.
Sellers of junk.

Even if we removed the negative ones, and "gypsy" made us just think of
"sexy mysterious woman", isn't that just objectifying women? Or sexualizing
a race of people? Is that any different than talking about which race has
bigger or smaller penises? Or saying that Asian women are "exotic" and
black men are "savage"?

So yeah, the more I've thought about this over the last few days - and the
last year or so ago, since I first suggested "spiral" - I've been realizing
that "gypsy" is a problem. Maybe it's not, at least in America, the slur
that it is in parts of Europe. But it's still a stereotype loaded word.

...

Why now?

The other objection is "very few are complaining, why not wait til more
people are complaining?"

Well, we can wait until it's a big problem, or we can acknowledge the
direction things are going, and head it off before it becomes less of an
accepted word. Would I rather be too PC, or like my grandma, who I had to
remind that "negro" is not an appropriate word anymore in the 2000s?  I'd
rather error on the side of PC, in this particular case.

For me, the tipping point, as I explained in my previous e-mail, has been
first and second hand accounts of people of actual Romani heritage having
issues. Yes, some do and some don't - but that's precisely the point I was
communicating when I came up with the "redneck" thought experiment. Some
wear "redneck" with honor. But definitely, *definitely* "redneck" is also
used as a slur to disparage people who are seen as inferior.

Best regards,
Ron

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Tom Hinds  wrote:

> When this discussion started I decided to actually use honky instead of
> gypsy the next time I called.   I would of course explain to the dancers
> this extremely important and delicate issue that is now confronting the
> contra dance community.   Why not get a chuckle from the floor?  I
> appreciate the suggestion of red neck but I think honky flows better.  See
> the end of this email for calling examples.
>
> Several people have thanked me off list for what I said because they don't
> want to be seen as insensitive.  Basically we think there's way too much
> mental effort and concern based on 1 person's complaint.  That I'm actually
> taking time at all on this topic is a bad reflection on my judgment.
>
> Ron, I really want to know:   since you started dancing have you thought
> badly of the Romani people because of the use of the word gypsy?  Is there
> any caller or dancer out there who has thought badly about Romani people
> because of this call?
>
> At the time that I wrote my last email, I also wrote the following but
> decided not to send it because I didn't want to be seen as insensitive.
> Here it is.  Maybe you'll get a chuckle.
>
>
>
> As a caller I've often used self-defecating humor to get dancers to
> relax.  It shows that we callers are human and can make mistakes etc.  It
> also takes the focus off of them and on to me.
>
> With that said I was thinking that we, the white majority in the US, might
> consider pointing the finger at ourselves in a joking way.  This  might
> show minorities that we to can take a joke and perhaps communicate that, in
> some situations,  it's important not to take things too seriously.
>
> Let's do away with the call gypsy and replace it with honky.  Here are
> some examples:
>
> "Honky your partner"
>
> or
>
> "Honky 'round your neighbor"
>
> or
>
> "ladies honky once and a half"
>
> If a Romani person ever complains to you tell them this:  naming a move
> after an ethnic group is one of the highest honors of our dance community.
> The only other people to be so honored are the Dosidoes.
>
> Tom
>
>

Re: [Callers] Gypsy / "Redneck"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

"who on this list believe that contra dancers have a negative view of the
Romani people because of the word gypsy?"

Over the last few days, as this conversation has spilled out onto a few
forms of social media, I have now heard specific stories about people who
are Roma and/or have Roma heritage who are folk dancers in dance forms that
use "gypsy" as a term, and are offended directly.

As to your question, do you consider "negative" to include "reinforcing
stereotypes"?  Maybe?

What if we had a dance move called "redneck". Sure, there's plenty of find
country folks in America who proudly self-describe as a "redneck". There
are songs written about them. There are people who dress up for Halloween
as them. etc. Does that mean that there aren't also plenty of people who
have been called "redneck" as a slur against the stereotype of "dumb,
rural, ignorant yokels"?  I find the parallels compelling enough where I'm
now seriously leaning off the fence...

-Ron Blechner

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Tom Hinds via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> In my opinion the offended women actually helped spread a stereotype she
> didn't like.  Who on this list knew that Romani women had a reputation for
> being (I can't remember, was it) sexual?  Not me.  Okay, it was the caller
> she complained to who put it out there, but she started it.   Should the
> caller feel defensive or should the caller turn the issue around if it's
> appropriate?
>
> I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY WANT TO KNOW, who on this list believe that
> contra dancers have a negative view of the Romani people because of the
> word gypsy?  Anyone?
>
> For me the more important issue is education.  I learned another tidbit
> about the Romani people.  Yes I understand how people can be sensitive, but
> perhaps this woman needs to learn something about us before jumping to
> conclusions.
>
> Tom
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>