Mark,
There's actually a very nice way to do that transition. After the "reflection" off the other man, the man is backing up and circulating slightly counter-clockwise, as you describe. He is basically changing places with his swing partner, who has just emerged from the hey, and is behind him. If he raises his right arm (way up high, so his elbow is not at eye level) as he backs up, his swing partner can slip in underneath and then he can lower his arm. Try it with 3 others - it is much easier done than described. (This is the part I wished I had demonstrated when I called the dance.)
-John
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:19:33 -0400
> From: "Mark Hillegonds" <mhillegonds(a)comcast.net>
> To: "'Caller's discussion list'" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance: Betty's night out
> Message-ID: <008e01cae02f$ebebe2f0$c3c3a8d0$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the feedback, John.
>
> I have a question about the hey. (Full disclosure: I haven't called the
> dance, so my question is based on running through it mentally. Always a
> dicey thing!)
>
> I'd like to confirm that I'm correctly reading your instructions below that
> the ladies start the hey by passing right shoulders. If this is true, then
> the loops on the end will pass by left shoulders and will loop
> counter-clockwise.
>
> Based on this, it seems like the dancers will have to change direction quite
> significantly when they go from the counter-clockwise loop in the hey to the
> clockwise direction of the partner swing.
>
> Is this not as bad as it seems in my head? Or am I misreading the
> instructions?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Mark Hillegonds
>
> Cell: 734-756-8441
> Email: mhillegonds(a)comcast.net
>
>
I called the dance last night, and it worked very well - it's a keeper.
There was a little tendency for the dancers to finish early, and therefore begin the Dos-a-do early. I traced this back to the fact that the figure before the zig zag is a circle left 3/4. The dancers were accomplishing that is 6 steps and starting (and finishing) the zig zag early. The music was quite zesty, and the dancers were stepping This wasn't a big problem, and I was able to fix it by timing my calls differently.
> Betty's Night Out
> Rich Goss
> Improper, Double Prog
>
> A1: Neighbor Dosido and Swing (end facing down hall)
> A2: Down hall 4-in-line(4), turn as couples(4); Return(4), hand cast (gents backing up, 4 counts)
> B1: 1/2 Hey, Gents Ricochet Back (Ladies cross rt sh) Partner swing
> B2: Circle Left 3/4, As Couples, zig left past current N, zag right around next N, zig left to couple #3
Regarding the timing in A2, I encouraged the dancers to (a) only take 4 steps down the hall, and (b) use a courtesy turn. This sets up the timing for the up the hall and hand cast.
(The hand cast takes 4 full counts, so therefore the up-the-hall can only be 4 steps.)
I had another problem in that some of the gents didn't do the ricochet correctly, but that was my fault for not demonstrating the oval pattern that is required.
-John
On Apr 15, 2010, at 6:39 PM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net wrote:
> Send Callers mailing list submissions to
> callers(a)sharedweight.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> callers-owner(a)sharedweight.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: New Dance (Jack Mitchell)
> 2. Re: New Dance (richgoss(a)comcast.net)
> 3. Re: New Dance (Jack Mitchell)
> 4. Re: New Dance (richgoss(a)comcast.net)
> 5. Re: New Dance (richgoss(a)comcast.net)
> 6. Re: Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance (Ron Nelson)
> 7. Re: Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
> (richgoss(a)comcast.net)
> 8. Re: Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance (Jack Mitchell)
> 9. Reminder: Callers Workshop with Lisa Greenleaf (Jack Mitchell)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:14:02 -0400
> From: Jack Mitchell <jamitch3(a)mindspring.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
> Message-ID: <4BC73B4A.9000605(a)mindspring.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> That's what I had in mind.
>
> J
>
> On 4/15/2010 11:52 AM, Gary Shapiro wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:31 AM, richgoss-at-comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't think there would be enough time for a hand cast.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The hand cast or gate or wheel around should take place in A2:
>>
>> A2: Down hall 4-in-line (4), turn as couples (4); return (4), wheel around
>> (M back up)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:52:22 +0000 (UTC)
> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
> Message-ID:
> <1863459627.13140711271350342097.JavaMail.root(a)sz0051a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> From: "Gary Shapiro" sharedweight-garyes(a)snkmail.com
>
> The hand cast or gate or wheel around should take place in A2:
>
> A2: Down hall 4-in-line (4), turn as couples (4); return (4), wheel around
> (M back up)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Isn't the usual timing for a down the hall:? down in 4 (6), turn (4), return (6) ?
>
>
>
> I like what you are proposing though.
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:59:09 -0400
> From: Jack Mitchell <jamitch3(a)mindspring.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
> Message-ID: <4BC745DD.1000001(a)mindspring.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> When I've done a dance with a hand cast out of the back up the hall,
> it's generally ended up
>
> Down the hall (4 and a bit)
> Turn (4 less a bit)
> Return (4 and a bit)
> Cast (4 less a bit)
>
> The timing can be a bit flexible. In addition, the cast will flow right
> into the Hey and so that timing will be a bit squishy too.
>
> Jack
> On 4/15/2010 12:52 PM, richgoss(a)comcast.net wrote:
>> Isn't the usual timing for a down the hall: down in 4 (6), turn (4), return (6) ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I like what you are proposing though.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:59:25 +0000 (UTC)
> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
> To: jamitch3(a)mindspring.com, Caller's discussion list
> <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
> Message-ID:
> <597081439.13171231271354365672.JavaMail.root(a)sz0051a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> Seems like a good change to the dance.? Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Mitchell" <jamitch3(a)mindspring.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:59:09 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
>
> When I've done a dance with a hand cast out of the back up the hall,
> it's generally ended up
>
> Down the hall (4 and a bit)
> Turn (4 less a bit)
> Return (4 and a bit)
> Cast (4 less a bit)
>
> The timing can be a bit flexible. ?In addition, the cast will flow right
> into the Hey and so that timing will be a bit squishy too.
>
> Jack
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:05:39 +0000 (UTC)
> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
> Message-ID:
> <302640891.13174091271354739311.JavaMail.root(a)sz0051a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
>
> Here is the new dance with changes from Jack, and clarification on the zig-zag:
>
>
>
> Betty?s Night Out ? Rich Goss ???? Improper, Double Prog
>
> A1: ? Neighbor Dosido and Swing (end facing down hall)
> A2: ? Down hall 4-in-line(4), turn as couples(4); Return(4), hand cast (gents backing up, ladies walking forward) to send the ladies in to start the half hey?
>
> B1: 1/2 Hey, Gents Ricochet Back (Ladies cross rt sh) Partner swing
> B2: Circle Left 3/4, As Couples, zig left?past current N, zag right around next N, zig left to couple #3 (to start A1 Dosido)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:45:31 +0000
> From: Ron Nelson <callerman(a)hotmail.com>
> To: <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
> Message-ID: <COL119-W121307A6705F05B7FCD03BB80F0(a)phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> I would refer to the action by saying "as couples, weave past two couples, finish facing 3rd couple". Of course, I come from a square dance background where we "weave the ring". This would merely be a derivation of that call.
>
>
>
> What I'm not clear on is the richochet. I've heard the term, but am not sure of the execution. Care to elaborate?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ron Nelson
>
> Chula Vista, CA
>
>> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:15:55 -0700
>> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
>> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
>>
>> Right. Another way to describe it would be:
>> As couples zig-zag past 2 N couples, moving left around #1 (current), right
>> around #2, face the #3 (to A1: dosido).
>>
>> Let me know how it goes if you call it.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/10 6:46 AM, "Ruth Pershing" <rpershing(a)mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rich ~
>>>
>>> I don't know the answer to your question about whether the dance has
>>> been written, but could you explain the B2 zig-zag figure? Does it
>>> mean that as a couple, you pass by the next couple to the left (women
>>> pass), then next couple by the right (men pass) and the next by the
>>> left (women pass), then get ready to do-si-do a new neighbor for the
>>> next time through?
>>>
>>> I might try it this weekend. Thanks,
>>>
>>> ~Ruth, Chapel Hill NC
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:57 AM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Rich Goss <richgoss(a)comcast.net>
>>>> Date: April 14, 2010 10:15:21 AM EDT
>>>> To: Shared Weight <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>> Subject: [Callers] New Dance
>>>> Reply-To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrote this dance recently in honor of one of our dancers who
>>>> recently passed
>>>> away, Betty Stewart. Has this one already been written?
>>>>
>>>> Betty?s Night Out Rich Goss
>>>> Improper, Double Prog
>>>>
>>>> A1: Neighbor Dosido and Swing (end facing down hall)
>>>> A2: Down hall 4-in-line, turn as couples; Return, face across
>>>> B1: 1/2 Hey, Gents Ricochet Back (Ladies cross rt sh)
>>>> Partner swing
>>>> B2: Circle Left 3/4
>>>> As Couples, zig left, zag right, zig left
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rich, Portland Or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:…
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:57:47 +0000 (UTC)
> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
> Message-ID:
> <1557894258.13195571271357867755.JavaMail.root(a)sz0051a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
>
>
> The ladies perform the 1/2 hey, crossing the set.?
>
> The gents start the 1/2 hey, but meet in the center, touch hands, and bounce back (or Richochet) ?to their same side.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Nelson" <callerman(a)hotmail.com>
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:45:31 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
>
>
> I would refer to the action by saying "as couples, weave past two couples, finish facing 3rd couple". ?Of course, I come from a square dance background where we "weave the ring". ?This would merely be a derivation of that call.
>
> ?
>
> What I'm not clear on is the richochet. I've heard the term, but am not sure of the execution. Care to elaborate?
>
> ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> ?
>
> Ron Nelson
>
> Chula Vista, CA
> ?
>> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:15:55 -0700
>> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
>> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
>>
>> Right. Another way to describe it would be:
>> As couples zig-zag past 2 N couples, moving left around #1 (current), right
>> around #2, face the #3 (to A1: dosido).
>>
>> Let me know how it goes if you call it.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/10 6:46 AM, "Ruth Pershing" <rpershing(a)mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rich ~
>>>
>>> I don't know the answer to your question about whether the dance has
>>> been written, but could you explain the B2 zig-zag figure? Does it
>>> mean that as a couple, you pass by the next couple to the left (women
>>> pass), then next couple by the right (men pass) and the next by the
>>> left (women pass), then get ready to do-si-do a new neighbor for the
>>> next time through?
>>>
>>> I might try it this weekend. Thanks,
>>>
>>> ~Ruth, Chapel Hill NC
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:57 AM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Rich Goss <richgoss(a)comcast.net>
>>>> Date: April 14, 2010 10:15:21 AM EDT
>>>> To: Shared Weight <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>> Subject: [Callers] New Dance
>>>> Reply-To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrote this dance recently in honor of one of our dancers who
>>>> recently passed
>>>> away, Betty Stewart. Has this one already been written?
>>>>
>>>> Betty?s Night Out Rich Goss
>>>> Improper, Double Prog
>>>>
>>>> A1: Neighbor Dosido and Swing (end facing down hall)
>>>> A2: Down hall 4-in-line, turn as couples; Return, face across
>>>> B1: 1/2 Hey, Gents Ricochet Back (Ladies cross rt sh)
>>>> Partner swing
>>>> B2: Circle Left 3/4
>>>> As Couples, zig left, zag right, zig left
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rich, Portland Or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> ????????????????? ???????? ? ???????????????? ?
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:…
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:00:54 -0400
> From: Jack Mitchell <jamitch3(a)mindspring.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
> Message-ID: <4BC76266.5030107(a)mindspring.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Start a hey, ladies pass R, pass P by L on outside, gents meet and then
> bounce back to end up on their partner's left for the swing (it can be
> nice if the lady catches her partner for the swing.
>
> J
>
> On 4/15/2010 2:45 PM, Ron Nelson wrote:
>> I would refer to the action by saying "as couples, weave past two couples, finish facing 3rd couple". Of course, I come from a square dance background where we "weave the ring". This would merely be a derivation of that call.
>>
>>
>>
>> What I'm not clear on is the richochet. I've heard the term, but am not sure of the execution. Care to elaborate?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron Nelson
>>
>> Chula Vista, CA
>>
>>
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:15:55 -0700
>>> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
>>> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
>>>
>>> Right. Another way to describe it would be:
>>> As couples zig-zag past 2 N couples, moving left around #1 (current), right
>>> around #2, face the #3 (to A1: dosido).
>>>
>>> Let me know how it goes if you call it.
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/15/10 6:46 AM, "Ruth Pershing"<rpershing(a)mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rich ~
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the answer to your question about whether the dance has
>>>> been written, but could you explain the B2 zig-zag figure? Does it
>>>> mean that as a couple, you pass by the next couple to the left (women
>>>> pass), then next couple by the right (men pass) and the next by the
>>>> left (women pass), then get ready to do-si-do a new neighbor for the
>>>> next time through?
>>>>
>>>> I might try it this weekend. Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> ~Ruth, Chapel Hill NC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:57 AM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: Rich Goss<richgoss(a)comcast.net>
>>>>> Date: April 14, 2010 10:15:21 AM EDT
>>>>> To: Shared Weight<callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>>> Subject: [Callers] New Dance
>>>>> Reply-To: Caller's discussion list<callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrote this dance recently in honor of one of our dancers who
>>>>> recently passed
>>>>> away, Betty Stewart. Has this one already been written?
>>>>>
>>>>> Betty?s Night Out Rich Goss
>>>>> Improper, Double Prog
>>>>>
>>>>> A1: Neighbor Dosido and Swing (end facing down hall)
>>>>> A2: Down hall 4-in-line, turn as couples; Return, face across
>>>>> B1: 1/2 Hey, Gents Ricochet Back (Ladies cross rt sh)
>>>>> Partner swing
>>>>> B2: Circle Left 3/4
>>>>> As Couples, zig left, zag right, zig left
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rich, Portland Or
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Callers mailing list
>>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:…
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:25:33 -0400
> From: Jack Mitchell <jamitch3(a)mindspring.com>
> To: trianglecontra(a)yahoogroups.com, fiddle-and-bow(a)yahoogroups.com,
> Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: [Callers] Reminder: Callers Workshop with Lisa Greenleaf
> Message-ID: <4BC7BC8D.3070700(a)mindspring.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Don't forget that the registration deadline for the Callers Workshop
> with Lisa Greenleaf is coming up. At this point, we're about half full,
> and I expect more registrations to be coming in over the next week or
> so. If you've been planning to send in your registration and haven't
> sent it yet, please get it in soon.
>
> The workshop will be the weekend of May 21-23, held at a variety of
> locations in the Chapel Hill area. We will get started on Friday
> evening around 7:00 for an opening gathering, will meet all day (8:30 -
> 4:30) on Saturday, have a dance Saturday evening, and then wrap up with
> a Sunday brunch and closing discussion on Sunday from 11:00 - 2:00 or so.
>
> The registration form can be downloaded here:
> http://www.indigo-logix.com/jack/Workshop/2010WorkshopwithLisaGreenleaf.doc
>
> If you have any questions, please email jamitch3(a)mindspring.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
> End of Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 16
> ***************************************
Hello all,
I hear two sorts of needs expressed:
(a) a need for CLARITY, SIMPLICITY, and EFFICIENCY
(Such as my personal need to avoid spending precious time scrolling through pages and pages of messages, trying, often with significant struggle and no small amount of irritation, to figure out what the new ones are, and simultaneously wondering why on earth a poster would fail to take the time to be courteous, i.m.o, and delete all irrelevant information and to use a relevant/informative subject line.)
(b) a need for INFORMATION and CONTEXT
(Such as my personal need to know what the heck a poster is referring to.)
Happily, a third path has been suggested already, which effectively meets BOTH sets of needs. Hooray!!
Namely...
Delete all past threads except those immediately relevant to your post.
-or-
Frame your response and its subject line such that it includes relevant context.
What is wrong with the third path? If one of you out there can't do this, I'd love you to explain to me, and everyone else, why you feel it's impossible to modify your posting behavior such that everyone on this list can have their (above-stated) needs met.
Curiously,
Chrissy Fowler
Belfast, ME
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28…
To return to that responsibility issue - I didn't say the caller was
to blame, you know. Taking responsibility is subtly different from
being to blame.
It is also the caller's responsibility to determine how much "chaos"
can be tolerated in the dance. Sometimes you decide that even if the
walkthrough isn't perfectly solid, the music will straighten things
out and even if the first one or two times might be rocky, it will
even out and will be worth getting the hall dancing. With experience
it gets easier to decide when to make that call. In the situation
with a huge hall and hundreds of dancers, even with good teaching and
calling, a breakdown in a line where there is a sudden confluence of
confused people may almost be certain to happen sometime in a night -
the question then becomes whether consistent clear calling will allow
the neighboring dancers to clear out the situation - and often it
does. And occasionally in a huge hall, the decision has to be made
that stopping the dance that is going gangbusters for 90% of the
people, with great energy and great music, and has ground to a halt
for 10%, is no longer a good idea. With luck, in a huge hall, some
of the "defunct" dancers can run to the end of a working line and get
going again.
Now drunken dancers - that's actually more the managers'
responsibility, though a caller may want to alert the managers if
they are unawares. As a manager once I did have to ask a drunken
dancer to "please sit out for a while until you're feeling better",
whereupon he left, which was fine with everyone. That rarely happens
here, thankfully.
I did do a gig from hell where I was hired to call a contra for an
American Airlines sales convention. It was in a large outdoor tent
where they had various "fun" activities for the attendees, including
a rock wall to climb, some county fair arcade type games, loads of
alcohol, and, because one of their associates had suggested it,
contra-dancing. Or at least that's what it was supposed to be. They
put down a small parquet floor about 9 by 9 foot wide - I begged the
people putting it up to add some extra panels, so it ended up 12 by
12. Aside from that the surface was just hard-packed dirt or grass.
Had a nice old-timey band of my friends playing. People enjoyed the
music and that brought them over to the "dance floor". But they kept
getting drunker as the night went on. I would teach some simple
dance, often a square (which fit best on the floor) and start it
going, and suddenly a few more inebriated people would wander into it
and start dancing, grabbing the other people and swinging them
around, and I'd just have to make stuff up to try to accommodate
everyone on the fly. It was sort of like the never-ending running
set. Or maybe the never-ending stumbling set. Gave new meaning to the
term "reel". In retrospect they all seemed to be having a good time,
but I was just trying to keep people from hurling each other off the
floor (or onto it) or smashing into other dancers in their drunken
exuberance. The bartenders nearby came over at the end and told us
how much they enjoyed the music, which was nice of them. It was a
funny gig - I had gotten a call from a woman who said they wanted to
hire a caller and some musicians for this event, but they couldn't
pay more than $700, take it or leave it. So we took it, and I
certainly earned my keep on that one. Can't say that I felt I was to
blame for any of it - but I did continue to be responsible for trying
to call some semblance of a dance.
Martha
On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:57 AM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net wrote:
> Send Callers mailing list submissions to
> callers(a)sharedweight.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> callers-owner(a)sharedweight.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Putting Out Fires (Dan Pearl)
> 2. Re: Putting Out Fires (Leda Shapiro)
> 3. Re: Not always the caller's fault! (J L Korr)
> 4. Re: Not always the caller's fault! (Chris Weiler (home))
> 5. New Dance (Rich Goss)
> 6. sometimes not the caller's fault! (Lewis Land)
> 7. Re: sometimes not the caller's fault! (Greg McKenzie)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dan Pearl <daniel_pearl(a)yahoo.com>
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Putting Out Fires
> Message-ID: <975135.90434.qm(a)web65706.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Until very recently, I thought "it is always the caller's fault".
> The problem with absolutes like "always" is that a counterexample
> jumps up and hits you in the face.
>
> I like (and use) the tactics for putting out fires that others
> recommended: Beef up the calling (earlier, more directional, more
> complete), NOT calling to the late group, etc. Not mentioned here
> yet is the old "manual intervention". I use a wireless mic, and
> that allows me to move around, hopefully addressing issues before
> they erupt in flames, but also providing an in-your-face hard-to-
> ignore knowledgeable guide post.
>
> If you ever read Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, you'll remember that
> the science of psychohistory which allowed practitioners to
> essentially predict the future of civilizations was compromised by
> a random mutation ("The Mule"). I was thinking of that a few
> Saturdays ago when I was calling for a challenging dance. I don't
> mean challenging to the dancers: I mean challenging to me to call!
> It was a regular dance series, and the "regulars" weren't there,
> and there were lots of new dancers. That's OK with me; I do that
> all the time. I found myself presenting pretty easy stuff, and
> astonishingly, I needed to make it easier as the evening went on. I
> was running out of easier-than-dead-easy material. That's also OK
> -- I know how to write dances on the fly. What I was not prepared
> for was a concentration of dancers that needed special handling.
>
> One dancer, an older fellow who had been dancing for some time, was
> literally moving in slow motion, and in a time delay so that the
> people around him were sucked into his rift in the time-space
> continuum. Another dancer, a newcomer who seemed to "get it"
> initially, began careening in random directions at high speed, with
> a great big smile on her face. Another new gentleman, also after
> seemingly "getting it", started to regress to periods of non-
> movement. I moved right next to him and said "right hand star",
> putting my own hand out to model the action. He just stood there
> and repeated "right hand star".
>
> This made me think about, and question, the assumption that the
> caller is always at fault. Perhaps that is a fine mental state to
> be in (that is, not blaming the dancers), but you know, the conduct
> of the evening is not, and cannot be entirely one person's
> responsibility. A dance is like a machine with many moving parts,
> and they need to be functioning in expected ways for a smooth
> experience. Mistakes? They are part of what the machine does. I
> have more trouble when communication that has worked before begins
> to fail, when lessons learned are forgotten, and when other
> unexpected behaviors arise.
>
> So this was one of the least fun, least rewarding gigs in my 30
> years of calling. I chalk it up to an unfortunate confluence of
> factors likely not to be repeated for another 30 years.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:36:55 -0700
> From: "Leda Shapiro" <ledas(a)pacbell.net>
> To: "'Caller's discussion list'" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Putting Out Fires
> Message-ID: <F067F11434C849D4A789A63A630B55EA@LEDAXP>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Thank you for reminding us that we, after all, are human...and
> sometimes
> those there does seem to be a random mutation in one evening...and
> yes,
> have read Asimov's Trilogy -in fact I read all three more than once.
>
> Thankfully there are all those other nights to remember!
>
> One every 30 years ain't bad..
> Leda
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: callers-bounces(a)sharedweight.net
> [mailto:callers-bounces@sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Dan Pearl
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:04 PM
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Putting Out Fires
>
> If you ever read Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, you'll remember that the
> science of psychohistory which allowed practitioners to essentially
> predict
> the future of civilizations was compromised by a random mutation ("The
> Mule"). I was thinking of that a few Saturdays ago when I was
> calling for a
> challenging dance. I don't mean challenging to the dancers: I mean
> challenging to me to call! It was a regular dance series, and the
> "regulars" weren't there, and there were lots of new dancers.
> That's OK
> with me; I do that all the time. I found myself presenting pretty
> easy
> stuff, and astonishingly, I needed to make it easier as the evening
> went on.
> I was running out of easier-than-dead-easy material. That's also
> OK -- I
> know how to write dances on the fly. What I was not prepared for was a
> concentration of dancers that needed special handling.
>
> One dancer, an older fellow who had been dancing for some time, was
> literally moving in slow motion, and in a time delay so that the
> people
> around him were sucked into his rift in the time-space continuum.
> Another
> dancer, a newcomer who seemed to "get it" initially, began
> careening in
> random directions at high speed, with a great big smile on her face.
> Another new gentleman, also after seemingly "getting it", started
> to regress
> to periods of non-movement. I moved right next to him and said
> "right hand
> star", putting my own hand out to model the action. He just stood
> there and
> repeated "right hand star".
>
> This made me think about, and question, the assumption that the
> caller is
> always at fault. Perhaps that is a fine mental state to be in (that
> is, not
> blaming the dancers), but you know, the conduct of the evening is
> not, and
> cannot be entirely one person's responsibility. A dance is like a
> machine
> with many moving parts, and they need to be functioning in expected
> ways for
> a smooth experience. Mistakes? They are part of what the machine
> does. I
> have more trouble when communication that has worked before begins
> to fail,
> when lessons learned are forgotten, and when other unexpected
> behaviors
> arise.
>
> So this was one of the least fun, least rewarding gigs in my 30
> years of
> calling. I chalk it up to an unfortunate confluence of factors
> likely not to
> be repeated for another 30 years.
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:46:14 -0400
> From: J L Korr <jeremykorr(a)hotmail.com>
> To: <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Not always the caller's fault!
> Message-ID: <SNT101-W50819A68F3B751180E9C7BC7100(a)phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Sorry, folks, but this conversation is pushing a personal button
> about not using words like "always" and "never" unless it's truly
> so. I completely agree with Greg, Martha, and others that in
> general, the caller does and should bear responsibility for
> problems on the dance floor. But I can't agree that this is always
> the case. Consider these two scenarios, among others:
>
> 1) In a large dance hall at a festival with 500 dancers, one of ten
> contra lines begins to break down when pairs of less experienced
> dancers happen to meet simultaneously in three different minor sets
> and become confused. The rest of the hall is fine. The caller can't
> intervene personally by, for example, running out on the floor.
>
> 2) During the 12:15 am - 2:00 am set at the Falcon Ridge Folk
> Festival, again with hundreds of dancers, the caller calls a
> relatively easy dance requiring little thought. Some dancers, who
> are in a range of mental states from alcohol, etc., have trouble
> staying oriented and coordinated, causing recurring problems in
> their sets.
>
> I'd argue that in these contexts, though the dance floor itself is
> experiencing a breakdown, the caller hasn't done anything wrong,
> nor does s/he have the responsibility of fixing the problem. In the
> first scenario, the caller must select dances for and call to the
> broadest possible swath of dancers among those present, recognizing
> that some minor problems are inevitable. In the second scenario,
> the inebriated dancers are entitled to participate in the dance at
> that venue, and there's little the caller can do to improve their
> mental coordination.
>
> So I'd say the caller almost always has responsibility for problems
> that occur in the hall, but in certain scenarios does not, or at
> least has limited responsibility relative to most situations. --Jeremy
>
>> From: Martha Wild <mawild(a)sbcglobal.net>
>
>> Oh, yes, and it's always the caller's responsibility.
>
>>> From: Greg McKenzie <gregmck(a)earthlink.net>
>
>>> There are never fires in the hall--only in your own mind. If there
>>> is trouble anywhere in the hall it is because you have screwed
>>> up...somewhere. <snip> The caller should take full
>>> responsibility for
>>> the gaff.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
> inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?
> ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:31:29 -0400
> From: "Chris Weiler (home)" <chris.weiler(a)weirdtable.org>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Not always the caller's fault!
> Message-ID: <4BC59981.7070005(a)weirdtable.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I think there needs to be a distinction between what is really
> happening
> in the hall and the stance that we take from the microphone. There are
> hundreds of variables that are all outside of our control at a
> dance. We
> pretend to have control, but all we can do is influence. It is our
> responsibility to use that influence to try and help everyone have
> a lot
> of fun. But you're not going to be able to stop some problems from
> happening.
>
> That said, there is a lot of power in taking responsibility from the
> microphone for problems, even when it's not your fault. Some have been
> listed here already. It puts people at ease. They can relax and enjoy
> the next dance without being overly focused on what went wrong. It
> reinforces your authority when lines falling apart are creating a
> feeling of chaos. And sometimes, it really is your fault. ;)
>
> I had this happen at a recent dance. I called a very simple dance, but
> it is constructed symmetrically, so sometimes it can be difficult to
> know if you're in the As or the Bs. The second time through the
> dance, I
> called "neighbor" instead of "partner" and half the hall believed
> me and
> the other half didn't. Everyone was in a different place very quickly.
> After seeing that I couldn't get everyone back to the same place to
> recover after a couple of attempts, I stopped the music and
> immediately
> announced "Sorry, folks, my fault completely. Let's try this
> again." The
> crowd erupted in applause! They lined up and we started again without
> any further trouble. People respond to humility and to people who take
> responsibility for their actions. It humanizes you in their eyes and
> they'll cut you a lot of slack for it.
>
> Chris Weiler
> Goffstown, NH
>
>
> J L Korr wrote:
>> Sorry, folks, but this conversation is pushing a personal button
>> about not using words like "always" and "never" unless it's truly
>> so. I completely agree with Greg, Martha, and others that in
>> general, the caller does and should bear responsibility for
>> problems on the dance floor. But I can't agree that this is always
>> the case. Consider these two scenarios, among others:
>>
>> 1) In a large dance hall at a festival with 500 dancers, one of
>> ten contra lines begins to break down when pairs of less
>> experienced dancers happen to meet simultaneously in three
>> different minor sets and become confused. The rest of the hall is
>> fine. The caller can't intervene personally by, for example,
>> running out on the floor.
>>
>> 2) During the 12:15 am - 2:00 am set at the Falcon Ridge Folk
>> Festival, again with hundreds of dancers, the caller calls a
>> relatively easy dance requiring little thought. Some dancers, who
>> are in a range of mental states from alcohol, etc., have trouble
>> staying oriented and coordinated, causing recurring problems in
>> their sets.
>>
>> I'd argue that in these contexts, though the dance floor itself is
>> experiencing a breakdown, the caller hasn't done anything wrong,
>> nor does s/he have the responsibility of fixing the problem. In
>> the first scenario, the caller must select dances for and call to
>> the broadest possible swath of dancers among those present,
>> recognizing that some minor problems are inevitable. In the second
>> scenario, the inebriated dancers are entitled to participate in
>> the dance at that venue, and there's little the caller can do to
>> improve their mental coordination.
>>
>> So I'd say the caller almost always has responsibility for
>> problems that occur in the hall, but in certain scenarios does
>> not, or at least has limited responsibility relative to most
>> situations. --Jeremy
>>
>>
>>> From: Martha Wild <mawild(a)sbcglobal.net>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Oh, yes, and it's always the caller's responsibility.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>> From: Greg McKenzie <gregmck(a)earthlink.net>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>> There are never fires in the hall--only in your own mind. If there
>>>> is trouble anywhere in the hall it is because you have screwed
>>>> up...somewhere. <snip> The caller should take full
>>>> responsibility for
>>>> the gaff.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from
>> your inbox.
>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?
>> ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:15:21 -0700
> From: Rich Goss <richgoss(a)comcast.net>
> To: Shared Weight <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: [Callers] New Dance
> Message-ID: <C7EB1C09.8C6E%richgoss(a)comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> Wrote this dance recently in honor of one of our dancers who
> recently passed
> away, Betty Stewart. Has this one already been written?
>
> Betty?s Night Out ? Rich Goss
> Improper, Double Prog
>
> A1: Neighbor Dosido and Swing (end facing down hall)
> A2: Down hall 4-in-line, turn as couples; Return, face across
> B1: 1/2 Hey, Gents Ricochet Back (Ladies cross rt sh)
> Partner swing
> B2: Circle Left 3/4
> As Couples, zig left, zag right, zig left
>
>
> Rich, Portland Or
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:15:03 -0600
> From: Lewis Land <lewisland(a)windstream.net>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Cc: J L Korr <jeremykorr(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: [Callers] sometimes not the caller's fault!
> Message-ID: <4BC5CDE7.5010309(a)windstream.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Regarding J L Korr's message observing that it's not always the
> caller's
> fault, he is completely correct. The point Greg and I were trying to
> make is that the caller is sort of like the conductor in an orchestra,
> the person who is ultimately responsible for making everything go
> smoothly and happen on time.
>
> Things don't always go smoothly, of course. Where I call we often
> have a
> group consisting of more than 50% newcomers, and when I tell them that
> any mistakes in the dance are always the caller's fault, it's my
> way of
> putting the newcomers at ease and making them feel welcome. Some
> people
> that show up have never done any kind of dancing before, in their
> entire
> lives (these are usually guys), and the prospect of community dancing
> can be quite intimidating. Based on my own experience when I first
> started contra dancing, I try to make it clear to the novices that
> we're
> a very non-judgmental group, so even the most catastrophic missteps on
> their part are ultimately my responsibility.
>
> That said, at almost every dance I've called I have found myself
> rolling
> my eyes at the sight of, for example, some dancer who has been showing
> up regularly for /years/, and still has no sense of timing (again,
> usually a guy), or the group of young, inexperienced dancers who
> insist
> on dancing exclusively with each other, disrupting the entire line
> because they seem to think contra is somewhat like break dancing.
> There
> are plenty of times when incompetent dancers screw things up, and
> during
> post-dance conversations with our other caller I will rant about them
> unmercifully. But at the dance the best thing I can do is try to
> project
> an air of confidence and let people know everything's going to be
> fine,
> and fun. It's very similar to the attitude I tried to project when
> I was
> raising teenage children.
>
> One final comment: I sometimes find myself dancing in a venue where
> the
> caller is very experienced and is obviously experimenting with new and
> challenging dances, at a level that is clearly incompatible with the
> experience level of most of the dancers in the hall. I think this is
> very self-indulgent. We all need to grow as callers, but the best
> callers can gauge the experience level of the group and call
> appropriately. Some of my best calling experiences have involved
> calling
> a dance that I've labeled "painfully easy", and afterward having a new
> dancer come up to thank me for my calling and tell me what a wonderful
> time they've had. That's really what it's all about. -Lewis Land
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:57:15 -0700
> From: Greg McKenzie <gregmck(a)earthlink.net>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] sometimes not the caller's fault!
> Message-ID: <E1O24y1-0007YT-4g(a)elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
>
>
> Thanks to all who spoke up, for bringing this
> issue into more clarity. ?It?s always the
> caller?s fault,? is a clever line that is often
> misunderstood. Too many callers see it as a
> throw-away gesture that has a laudable sentiment, but no real
> substance.
>
> It might be more accurate, and more useful to
> say: ?The caller always takes full responsibility
> for anything that happens in the hall.?
>
> This posture is one with a history that grows out
> of the caller?s role as the master of
> ceremonies. MCs have always understood the need
> for taking responsibility as part of their task
> of holding the attention of the hall. This is
> how they maintain their position of
> leadership. It was with the development of
> amplified public address systems that this
> responsibility became much more salient and much
> more necessary. When speaking with a microphone
> the emcee has the awesome power of projecting
> their thoughts into the minds of all present,
> with little effort. This ability comes with a
> great responsibility of leadership, and
> professional emcees have learned that their role
> is to always speak on behalf of the interests of
> everyone in the hall. That means taking full
> responsibility for anything that goes wrong.
>
> How can the caller take responsibility for
> everything that happens? If the toilet in the
> ladies bathroom backs up, is it the caller?s fault?
>
> Actually, it is. More to the point, it is the
> caller?s responsibility, as a leader, to deal
> with the situation. Here is one possible example:
>
> ?Ladies and gentlemen: Please accept my sincere
> apologies. I have been informed that there is a
> serious problem with the plumbing in the ladies
> bathroom. I am sorry about this inconvenience
> and ask for your gracious cooperation. The
> ladies bathroom will be closed for the rest of
> this evening. Julie, our wonderful dance
> manager, has made a sign with both a ?Men?s? and
> a ?Ladies? side which will be hung on the working
> bathroom. Julie will take responsibility for
> switching the sign during each dance. We ask
> that you use this bathroom only when it is
> labeled for your gender. Once again, I am sorry
> about this inconvenience. We all appreciate your
> cooperation and consideration in dealing with
> this problem. Now, please take hands in groups
> of four from the top of the hall.?
>
> This announcement could, of course, be made by
> the dance manager or some other responsible
> party. The caller, however, should apologize, in
> any case, for the disruption of the dance
> program. In the absence of anyone else stepping
> forward it is the caller?s responsibility to
> address the problem. The point is to put the
> dancers at ease so that they can do their job of
> enjoying a wonderful evening of social dance with live music.
>
> Someone brought up the issue of dancers who fail
> to integrate into the community and form clumps
> of newcomers. Is this the caller?s fault? Yes
> it is. The tradition of contra dance includes
> learning at a regular dance rather than in
> separate lessons. Consequently, integrating
> newcomers into the community is the caller?s
> responsibility and is one of the most essential
> core skills that define an excellent contra dance
> caller. Clumps of newcomers in the hall are a
> clear symptom of poor calling. Sorry. It?s one
> of your primary responsibilities. (Note that if
> we relinquish this responsibility it eliminates
> any discussion of how the caller can integrate
> newcomers, something that really should be addressed.)
>
> There have been some good points made in this
> thread. In the final analysis, however, the idea
> of the caller taking total responsibility is an
> inescapable position. While it may be true that
> the caller is not omnipotent I would submit the
> following points about the caller?s responsibility for the hall::
>
> * This is not a statement of fact. It is a
> statement of policy which defines the professional role of a caller.
>
> * Any alternative policy offers no possible
> action that the caller can take to ?put out
> fires? or improve the situation. Other positions
> offer only excuses for the caller to relinquish leadership.
>
> * By accepting this policy the caller can
> provide both leadership and a positive example
> for others. If the caller makes excuses others will follow that
> example.
>
> If there is any core principle to calling
> effectively and with professionalism, this is
> it. If the caller is not willing to take
> responsibility for everything that happens in the
> hall they are simply not doing their job. If
> there is a problem with the evening?whether it be
> disruptive dancers, a band that plays
> inappropriate tunes, or ?incompetent dancers,??an
> excellent caller will always ask: ?What could I
> do differently next time to better address this
> problem?? Without taking full responsibility the
> caller will not have the motivation to
> improve. There are always excuses to employ. A
> professional caller does not make excuses. Most
> importantly, this action sets an example for everyone.
>
> Calling is a role of leadership. If the
> caller?who has a PA system?is not willing to take
> responsibility, why should anyone else?
>
> Greg McKenzie
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
> End of Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12
> ***************************************
I love this new dance by Rich Goss. Personally the dance in it's
original form looks like fun with moves that are very interesting.
There's several reasons I wouldn't add the cast off. I don't think
the transition from coming up the hall into a hey is that awkward.
Secondly, a cast off would add to the complexity of the dance (and
add to the amount of time walking it through). It already has enough
complexity to be fun. Third, I believe the cast off would make the
dance flow better for the number one woman, but create lousy flow for
the number two woman. So we solve one problem and creat another. Or
perhaps the suggestion is to have everyone cast of in a counter-
clockwise direction. Then we introduce some crazy timing issues i.e.
one couple casts three-quarters while the other casts once and a
quarter. Is that what we are suggesting here?
Tom
On Apr 15, 2010, at 9:39 PM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net wrote:
> Send Callers mailing list submissions to
> callers(a)sharedweight.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> callers-owner(a)sharedweight.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: New Dance (Jack Mitchell)
> 2. Re: New Dance (richgoss(a)comcast.net)
> 3. Re: New Dance (Jack Mitchell)
> 4. Re: New Dance (richgoss(a)comcast.net)
> 5. Re: New Dance (richgoss(a)comcast.net)
> 6. Re: Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance (Ron Nelson)
> 7. Re: Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
> (richgoss(a)comcast.net)
> 8. Re: Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance (Jack Mitchell)
> 9. Reminder: Callers Workshop with Lisa Greenleaf (Jack Mitchell)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:14:02 -0400
> From: Jack Mitchell <jamitch3(a)mindspring.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
> Message-ID: <4BC73B4A.9000605(a)mindspring.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> That's what I had in mind.
>
> J
>
> On 4/15/2010 11:52 AM, Gary Shapiro wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:31 AM, richgoss-at-comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't think there would be enough time for a hand cast.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The hand cast or gate or wheel around should take place in A2:
>>
>> A2: Down hall 4-in-line (4), turn as couples (4); return (4),
>> wheel around
>> (M back up)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:52:22 +0000 (UTC)
> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
> Message-ID:
>
> <1863459627.13140711271350342097.JavaMail.root(a)sz0051a.emeryville.ca.m
> ail.comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> From: "Gary Shapiro" sharedweight-garyes(a)snkmail.com
>
> The hand cast or gate or wheel around should take place in A2:
>
> A2: Down hall 4-in-line (4), turn as couples (4); return (4), wheel
> around
> (M back up)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Isn't the usual timing for a down the hall:? down in 4 (6), turn
> (4), return (6) ?
>
>
>
> I like what you are proposing though.
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:59:09 -0400
> From: Jack Mitchell <jamitch3(a)mindspring.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
> Message-ID: <4BC745DD.1000001(a)mindspring.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> When I've done a dance with a hand cast out of the back up the hall,
> it's generally ended up
>
> Down the hall (4 and a bit)
> Turn (4 less a bit)
> Return (4 and a bit)
> Cast (4 less a bit)
>
> The timing can be a bit flexible. In addition, the cast will flow
> right
> into the Hey and so that timing will be a bit squishy too.
>
> Jack
> On 4/15/2010 12:52 PM, richgoss(a)comcast.net wrote:
>> Isn't the usual timing for a down the hall: down in 4 (6), turn
>> (4), return (6) ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I like what you are proposing though.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:59:25 +0000 (UTC)
> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
> To: jamitch3(a)mindspring.com, Caller's discussion list
> <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
> Message-ID:
>
> <597081439.13171231271354365672.JavaMail.root(a)sz0051a.emeryville.ca.ma
> il.comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> Seems like a good change to the dance.? Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Mitchell" <jamitch3(a)mindspring.com>
> To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:59:09 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
>
> When I've done a dance with a hand cast out of the back up the hall,
> it's generally ended up
>
> Down the hall (4 and a bit)
> Turn (4 less a bit)
> Return (4 and a bit)
> Cast (4 less a bit)
>
> The timing can be a bit flexible. ?In addition, the cast will flow
> right
> into the Hey and so that timing will be a bit squishy too.
>
> Jack
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:05:39 +0000 (UTC)
> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] New Dance
> Message-ID:
>
> <302640891.13174091271354739311.JavaMail.root(a)sz0051a.emeryville.ca.ma
> il.comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
>
> Here is the new dance with changes from Jack, and clarification on
> the zig-zag:
>
>
>
> Betty?s Night Out ? Rich Goss ???? Improper, Double Prog
>
> A1: ? Neighbor Dosido and Swing (end facing down hall)
> A2: ? Down hall 4-in-line(4), turn as couples(4); Return(4), hand
> cast (gents backing up, ladies walking forward) to send the ladies
> in to start the half hey?
>
> B1: 1/2 Hey, Gents Ricochet Back (Ladies cross rt sh) Partner swing
> B2: Circle Left 3/4, As Couples, zig left?past current N, zag right
> around next N, zig left to couple #3 (to start A1 Dosido)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:45:31 +0000
> From: Ron Nelson <callerman(a)hotmail.com>
> To: <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
> Message-ID: <COL119-W121307A6705F05B7FCD03BB80F0(a)phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> I would refer to the action by saying "as couples, weave past two
> couples, finish facing 3rd couple". Of course, I come from a
> square dance background where we "weave the ring". This would
> merely be a derivation of that call.
>
>
>
> What I'm not clear on is the richochet. I've heard the term, but am
> not sure of the execution. Care to elaborate?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ron Nelson
>
> Chula Vista, CA
>
>> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:15:55 -0700
>> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
>> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
>>
>> Right. Another way to describe it would be:
>> As couples zig-zag past 2 N couples, moving left around #1
>> (current), right
>> around #2, face the #3 (to A1: dosido).
>>
>> Let me know how it goes if you call it.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/10 6:46 AM, "Ruth Pershing" <rpershing(a)mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rich ~
>>>
>>> I don't know the answer to your question about whether the dance has
>>> been written, but could you explain the B2 zig-zag figure? Does it
>>> mean that as a couple, you pass by the next couple to the left
>>> (women
>>> pass), then next couple by the right (men pass) and the next by the
>>> left (women pass), then get ready to do-si-do a new neighbor for the
>>> next time through?
>>>
>>> I might try it this weekend. Thanks,
>>>
>>> ~Ruth, Chapel Hill NC
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:57 AM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Rich Goss <richgoss(a)comcast.net>
>>>> Date: April 14, 2010 10:15:21 AM EDT
>>>> To: Shared Weight <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>> Subject: [Callers] New Dance
>>>> Reply-To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrote this dance recently in honor of one of our dancers who
>>>> recently passed
>>>> away, Betty Stewart. Has this one already been written?
>>>>
>>>> Betty?s Night Out Rich Goss
>>>> Improper, Double Prog
>>>>
>>>> A1: Neighbor Dosido and Swing (end facing down hall)
>>>> A2: Down hall 4-in-line, turn as couples; Return, face across
>>>> B1: 1/2 Hey, Gents Ricochet Back (Ladies cross rt sh)
>>>> Partner swing
>>>> B2: Circle Left 3/4
>>>> As Couples, zig left, zag right, zig left
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rich, Portland Or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
> inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?
> ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:57:47 +0000 (UTC)
> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
> Message-ID:
>
> <1557894258.13195571271357867755.JavaMail.root(a)sz0051a.emeryville.ca.m
> ail.comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
>
>
> The ladies perform the 1/2 hey, crossing the set.?
>
> The gents start the 1/2 hey, but meet in the center, touch hands,
> and bounce back (or Richochet) ?to their same side.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Nelson" <callerman(a)hotmail.com>
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:45:31 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada
> Pacific
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
>
>
> I would refer to the action by saying "as couples, weave past two
> couples, finish facing 3rd couple". ?Of course, I come from a
> square dance background where we "weave the ring". ?This would
> merely be a derivation of that call.
>
> ?
>
> What I'm not clear on is the richochet. I've heard the term, but am
> not sure of the execution. Care to elaborate?
>
> ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> ?
>
> Ron Nelson
>
> Chula Vista, CA
> ?
>> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:15:55 -0700
>> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
>> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
>>
>> Right. Another way to describe it would be:
>> As couples zig-zag past 2 N couples, moving left around #1
>> (current), right
>> around #2, face the #3 (to A1: dosido).
>>
>> Let me know how it goes if you call it.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/10 6:46 AM, "Ruth Pershing" <rpershing(a)mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rich ~
>>>
>>> I don't know the answer to your question about whether the dance has
>>> been written, but could you explain the B2 zig-zag figure? Does it
>>> mean that as a couple, you pass by the next couple to the left
>>> (women
>>> pass), then next couple by the right (men pass) and the next by the
>>> left (women pass), then get ready to do-si-do a new neighbor for the
>>> next time through?
>>>
>>> I might try it this weekend. Thanks,
>>>
>>> ~Ruth, Chapel Hill NC
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:57 AM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Rich Goss <richgoss(a)comcast.net>
>>>> Date: April 14, 2010 10:15:21 AM EDT
>>>> To: Shared Weight <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>> Subject: [Callers] New Dance
>>>> Reply-To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrote this dance recently in honor of one of our dancers who
>>>> recently passed
>>>> away, Betty Stewart. Has this one already been written?
>>>>
>>>> Betty?s Night Out Rich Goss
>>>> Improper, Double Prog
>>>>
>>>> A1: Neighbor Dosido and Swing (end facing down hall)
>>>> A2: Down hall 4-in-line, turn as couples; Return, face across
>>>> B1: 1/2 Hey, Gents Ricochet Back (Ladies cross rt sh)
>>>> Partner swing
>>>> B2: Circle Left 3/4
>>>> As Couples, zig left, zag right, zig left
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rich, Portland Or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
> ????????????????? ???????? ? ???????????????? ?
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
> inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?
> ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:00:54 -0400
> From: Jack Mitchell <jamitch3(a)mindspring.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
> Message-ID: <4BC76266.5030107(a)mindspring.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Start a hey, ladies pass R, pass P by L on outside, gents meet and
> then
> bounce back to end up on their partner's left for the swing (it can be
> nice if the lady catches her partner for the swing.
>
> J
>
> On 4/15/2010 2:45 PM, Ron Nelson wrote:
>> I would refer to the action by saying "as couples, weave past two
>> couples, finish facing 3rd couple". Of course, I come from a
>> square dance background where we "weave the ring". This would
>> merely be a derivation of that call.
>>
>>
>>
>> What I'm not clear on is the richochet. I've heard the term, but
>> am not sure of the execution. Care to elaborate?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron Nelson
>>
>> Chula Vista, CA
>>
>>
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:15:55 -0700
>>> From: richgoss(a)comcast.net
>>> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 12- new dance
>>>
>>> Right. Another way to describe it would be:
>>> As couples zig-zag past 2 N couples, moving left around #1
>>> (current), right
>>> around #2, face the #3 (to A1: dosido).
>>>
>>> Let me know how it goes if you call it.
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/15/10 6:46 AM, "Ruth Pershing"<rpershing(a)mindspring.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rich ~
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the answer to your question about whether the dance
>>>> has
>>>> been written, but could you explain the B2 zig-zag figure? Does it
>>>> mean that as a couple, you pass by the next couple to the left
>>>> (women
>>>> pass), then next couple by the right (men pass) and the next by the
>>>> left (women pass), then get ready to do-si-do a new neighbor for
>>>> the
>>>> next time through?
>>>>
>>>> I might try it this weekend. Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> ~Ruth, Chapel Hill NC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:57 AM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: Rich Goss<richgoss(a)comcast.net>
>>>>> Date: April 14, 2010 10:15:21 AM EDT
>>>>> To: Shared Weight<callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>>> Subject: [Callers] New Dance
>>>>> Reply-To: Caller's discussion list<callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrote this dance recently in honor of one of our dancers who
>>>>> recently passed
>>>>> away, Betty Stewart. Has this one already been written?
>>>>>
>>>>> Betty?s Night Out Rich Goss
>>>>> Improper, Double Prog
>>>>>
>>>>> A1: Neighbor Dosido and Swing (end facing down hall)
>>>>> A2: Down hall 4-in-line, turn as couples; Return, face across
>>>>> B1: 1/2 Hey, Gents Ricochet Back (Ladies cross rt sh)
>>>>> Partner swing
>>>>> B2: Circle Left 3/4
>>>>> As Couples, zig left, zag right, zig left
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rich, Portland Or
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Callers mailing list
>>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from
>> your inbox.
>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?
>> ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:25:33 -0400
> From: Jack Mitchell <jamitch3(a)mindspring.com>
> To: trianglecontra(a)yahoogroups.com, fiddle-and-bow(a)yahoogroups.com,
> Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: [Callers] Reminder: Callers Workshop with Lisa Greenleaf
> Message-ID: <4BC7BC8D.3070700(a)mindspring.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Don't forget that the registration deadline for the Callers Workshop
> with Lisa Greenleaf is coming up. At this point, we're about half
> full,
> and I expect more registrations to be coming in over the next week or
> so. If you've been planning to send in your registration and haven't
> sent it yet, please get it in soon.
>
> The workshop will be the weekend of May 21-23, held at a variety of
> locations in the Chapel Hill area. We will get started on Friday
> evening around 7:00 for an opening gathering, will meet all day
> (8:30 -
> 4:30) on Saturday, have a dance Saturday evening, and then wrap up
> with
> a Sunday brunch and closing discussion on Sunday from 11:00 - 2:00
> or so.
>
> The registration form can be downloaded here:
> http://www.indigo-logix.com/jack/Workshop/
> 2010WorkshopwithLisaGreenleaf.doc
>
> If you have any questions, please email jamitch3(a)mindspring.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)sharedweight.net
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
> End of Callers Digest, Vol 68, Issue 16
> ***************************************
Sorry all, I agree with Dave C....I get huge numbers of emails from a
variety of sources, I even have multiple email address so that I can sort
who goes where so I can control when I read/not read/discard...the thread is
really important to me, a very new, fledgling, not calling yet caller. I
gain valuable insight and tools and if I can't see what the thread leads
back to it looses an import for me.
so...thanks all who post here as it is a wonderful source of teaching tools
and sharing of information that not only makes me a better dancer, but a
more caring and informed dance organizer and someday I hope a great caller.
Mary Collins
QDDC
Thx Alan; that s what has made the most sense to me.
Laur
On Thu Apr 15th, 2010 11:26 PM EDT Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing wrote:
>Dave wrote:
>
>> I dont get the digest.
>> I love all of the ideas and suggestions also.
>> I get 200+ emails a day.
>> I cannot tell what a reply is directed to if the original message is not within the reply. I have no way of knowing just which email, with the same subject line, is being referred to.
>
>I don't get the digest of this list, but what I think people should do is what
>I just did here: identify what I'm replying to and quote only the relevant
>parts.
>
>(I get digests of other lists and on at least one of them the lack of trimming
>there makes the digest almost unusable.)
>
>-- Alan
>--
>===============================================================================
> Alan Winston --- WINSTON(a)SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
> Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
> Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
>===============================================================================
>
>_______________________________________________
>Callers mailing list
>Callers(a)sharedweight.net
>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
I get these emails as a digest.
I love the list and all the great ideas.
I don't love scrolling and scrolling and scrolling past previous emails.
So when you reply to a message please snip off everything but perhaps, a
portion of the one you are responding to.
Thanks,
Bree Kalb
Carrboro, NC
Don't forget that the registration deadline for the Callers Workshop
with Lisa Greenleaf is coming up. At this point, we're about half full,
and I expect more registrations to be coming in over the next week or
so. If you've been planning to send in your registration and haven't
sent it yet, please get it in soon.
The workshop will be the weekend of May 21-23, held at a variety of
locations in the Chapel Hill area. We will get started on Friday
evening around 7:00 for an opening gathering, will meet all day (8:30 -
4:30) on Saturday, have a dance Saturday evening, and then wrap up with
a Sunday brunch and closing discussion on Sunday from 11:00 - 2:00 or so.
The registration form can be downloaded here:
http://www.indigo-logix.com/jack/Workshop/2010WorkshopwithLisaGreenleaf.doc
If you have any questions, please email jamitch3(a)mindspring.com
Rich ~
I don't know the answer to your question about whether the dance has
been written, but could you explain the B2 zig-zag figure? Does it
mean that as a couple, you pass by the next couple to the left (women
pass), then next couple by the right (men pass) and the next by the
left (women pass), then get ready to do-si-do a new neighbor for the
next time through?
I might try it this weekend. Thanks,
~Ruth, Chapel Hill NC
On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:57 AM, callers-request(a)sharedweight.net wrote:
> From: Rich Goss <richgoss(a)comcast.net>
> Date: April 14, 2010 10:15:21 AM EDT
> To: Shared Weight <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: [Callers] New Dance
> Reply-To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
>
>
> Wrote this dance recently in honor of one of our dancers who
> recently passed
> away, Betty Stewart. Has this one already been written?
>
> Betty¹s Night Out Rich Goss
> Improper, Double Prog
>
> A1: Neighbor Dosido and Swing (end facing down hall)
> A2: Down hall 4-in-line, turn as couples; Return, face across
> B1: 1/2 Hey, Gents Ricochet Back (Ladies cross rt sh)
> Partner swing
> B2: Circle Left 3/4
> As Couples, zig left, zag right, zig left
>
>
> Rich, Portland Or
>
>
>
>
