On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't read Cary's comments about squares as an "objection", just
> that Cary was rebutting the comment by George: "squares are just like
> contras, only you have to listen."
>
> Yes, thank you.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers
> <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> > Cary, some of your objections to squares seem a bit contradictory. Let
> me
> > re-state them, and see if I've understood you correctly.
> >
> > Some squares are unphrased, and those squares have less opportunity to
> > connect your movement to the music.
>
Yes.
> Many squares are danced for a shorter time than contradances are usually
> > danced, and therefore take relatively longer to teach compared to the
> > dancing time.
>
No, in my experience as a dancer, squares take longer to teach and this is
compensated with shorter dance time.
> > Many squares are mixers, and therefore have less time dancing with your
> > original partner than in a contra.
>
Yes.
> > Some squares have visiting couple dances, in which the dancers can only
> make
> > movements in place during some of the music.
>
In my experience as a dancer, visiting couple square use the interaction
sequence 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 and 2-3, 2-3, 2-4, 2-1 and 3-4, ... so for 2/3 of
the dance half the dancers are not included.
> > In all square dances, the need to listen for the calls interferes with
> the
> > relationship you would like to have with the music.
>
Yes.
> >
> > Have I understood your points correctly? Or have I not quite understood
> > your meaning?
>
*For me*, this all comes down to dancer, music, motion connection. It can
be wonderful in a contra. I've never found it in a square.
> >
> > Jacob Bloom
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers
> > <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Some things that people to not like about squares -
> >>
> >> less movement/music connection due to lack of strict phrasing
> >> having to listen to the caller breaks the movement/music connection
> >> teaching time
> >> mixer squares breaks the partner connection
> >> visiting squares leave people "out of the dance" for long periods.
> >>
> >> I find squares and contras completely different.
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> >
>
--
Cary Ravitz
ravitz(a)ravitz.us
caryravitz(a)gmail.com
http://ravitz.us
859-263-5087
I didn't read Cary's comments about squares as an "objection", just
that Cary was rebutting the comment by George: "squares are just like
contras, only you have to listen."
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Cary, some of your objections to squares seem a bit contradictory. Let me
> re-state them, and see if I've understood you correctly.
>
> Some squares are unphrased, and those squares have less opportunity to
> connect your movement to the music.
> Many squares are danced for a shorter time than contradances are usually
> danced, and therefore take relatively longer to teach compared to the
> dancing time.
> Many squares are mixers, and therefore have less time dancing with your
> original partner than in a contra.
> Some squares have visiting couple dances, in which the dancers can only make
> movements in place during some of the music.
> In all square dances, the need to listen for the calls interferes with the
> relationship you would like to have with the music.
>
> Have I understood your points correctly? Or have I not quite understood
> your meaning?
>
> Jacob Bloom
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers
> <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Some things that people to not like about squares -
>>
>> less movement/music connection due to lack of strict phrasing
>> having to listen to the caller breaks the movement/music connection
>> teaching time
>> mixer squares breaks the partner connection
>> visiting squares leave people "out of the dance" for long periods.
>>
>> I find squares and contras completely different.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
Cary, some of your objections to squares seem a bit contradictory. Let me
re-state them, and see if I've understood you correctly.
Some squares are unphrased, and those squares have less opportunity to
connect your movement to the music.
Many squares are danced for a shorter time than contradances are usually
danced, and therefore take relatively longer to teach compared to the
dancing time.
Many squares are mixers, and therefore have less time dancing with your
original partner than in a contra.
Some squares have visiting couple dances, in which the dancers can only
make movements in place during some of the music.
In all square dances, the need to listen for the calls interferes with the
relationship you would like to have with the music.
Have I understood your points correctly? Or have I not quite understood
your meaning?
Jacob Bloom
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Some things that people to not like about squares -
>
> less movement/music connection due to lack of strict phrasing
> having to listen to the caller breaks the movement/music connection
> teaching time
> mixer squares breaks the partner connection
> visiting squares leave people "out of the dance" for long periods.
>
> I find squares and contras completely different.
>
>
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015, Ron Blechner wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2015 10:48 AM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers" <
> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote:
>>>
>>> My main concern is how to acquire that tension/counterweight in a
>>> swing, if you do not lean back.
>>
>> Let momentum do the work. The way I teach swinging, I tell people
>> to stand nose-to-nose. Then I tell each of them to take a small
>> half-step to the left. If they twist, I tell them to go back to the
>> nose-to-nose and explain that it is critical that they stay facing
>> the same direction when they move left. Then I have them go into
>> ballroom hold and start walking forward, telling them to notice how
>> the pressure of holding each other just naturally forces them into a
>> circle.
>
> You don't find "nose-to-nose" makes some uncomfortable?
Hasn't happened yet AFAIK. I think most people understand that the
phrase doesn't mean "smash your noses together".
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
I use a buzz step plus elbow swing to give the sense that people rotating quickly around a point of connection will naturally fall away from one another, that this is desirable, and to note that they have to use their own strength to hold themselves up with their own bent arm. Then in ballroom hold, I invite them to note that when they bend their knees as if beginning to sit, their weight automatically becomes counterweight.
Andrea
Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
> On Jun 24, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Rich Sbardella via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> My main concern is how to acquire that tension/counterweight in a swing, if you do not lean back.
> Rich
>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2015 11:29 AM, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote:
>>>
>>> How do you descibe giving weight, and how do you teach it for circles,
>>> allemandes, and, swings?
>>> Rich
>>> Stafford, CT
>>
>> In my beginner sessions, I have them form a ring and then circle left and right a couple of times. Then I ask them to bend their elbows and feel "that springy tension between you and the dancers next to you. If you can keep that elasticity while you're connected to other dancers, then you're all supporting each other as you circle and turn, and it makes everything easier." And then we circle again, with the extra bit of sproing, and then do the same with allemandes. Just for fun, sometimes I'll have them go back to the floppy arms, just to feel the difference. I also let them know that with a little bit of tension in the connection, it's easier for the person they're dancing with to give them physical cues.
>>
>> And I know there's a better word than tension, and I'm pretty sure I've used it in the past, but right now I can't think of it.
>>
>> Kalia
>> Sebastopol, CA
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
I have two methods of demonstrating how much connection will give others a sense of your presence:
1) individually hook the fingertips of your own two hands together, then pull just till it locks and becomes firm.
2) make a big circle and take hands with the joined hands all slightly in front of the bodies, and the elbows all bent. Then I tell them to peel their toes off the ground, so their weight is only on their heels. Suddenly they all need each other and the sense of using the community to mutually hold everyone up is made evident.
I tell them to keep the electricity running through the ring as they put their toes down and circle L then R, and say that every time they have hands, in pairs, in fours, or with the whole room, they need to make that same kind of firm connection, because it's all about making units out of disparate parts.
Andrea
Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
> On Jun 24, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Rich Sbardella via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> My main concern is how to acquire that tension/counterweight in a swing, if you do not lean back.
> Rich
>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2015 11:29 AM, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote:
>>>
>>> How do you descibe giving weight, and how do you teach it for circles,
>>> allemandes, and, swings?
>>> Rich
>>> Stafford, CT
>>
>> In my beginner sessions, I have them form a ring and then circle left and right a couple of times. Then I ask them to bend their elbows and feel "that springy tension between you and the dancers next to you. If you can keep that elasticity while you're connected to other dancers, then you're all supporting each other as you circle and turn, and it makes everything easier." And then we circle again, with the extra bit of sproing, and then do the same with allemandes. Just for fun, sometimes I'll have them go back to the floppy arms, just to feel the difference. I also let them know that with a little bit of tension in the connection, it's easier for the person they're dancing with to give them physical cues.
>>
>> And I know there's a better word than tension, and I'm pretty sure I've used it in the past, but right now I can't think of it.
>>
>> Kalia
>> Sebastopol, CA
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
I differ with Cary's generalized storyline of contra being "uniting of
partners". If I had to generalize a storyline, it would be of building
community. I may be wrong, but I think David Kaynor, in his calling
booklet, referred to your "hands four" group as your "neighborhood". I
love that terminology. I often choose new or weak dancers as partners, and
I rely on the support of these neighborhoods to make the dance enjoyable.
In a square the neighborhood changes from four dancers to eight but you
stay with them longer. In most mixer squares, if called and danced
correctly, the partner relationship is restored as the dance resolves.
As a dancer, I love squares. It is a refreshing change, thus adding
variety without difficulty, during an evening of contras. Squares often
provide a rest period as others dance. This is a plus, not a minus; as I
age, I appreciate the rest.
I have found that some callers who are quite competent with contras, are
terrible with squares, I also see callers choosing squares that are too
difficult for an open contra dance, thus causing failure on the floor.
Calling squares is a different art than calling contras. Choosing squares
carefully with an adequate walk thru is essential. If a caller gets too
much negative feedback, or no positive feedback, perhaps that caller should
not be calling squares.
Another problem is that squares are not called often enough at some
series. The concept of corners, opposites, home position, RH lady, etc,,
are foreign to many contra dancers. These are all EZ concepts but all
together in a four minute blitz, every once in a while, can be overwhelming.
Adding squares regularly to our programs would enhance and expand the
experience.
Squarely, (can I say that?)
Rich Sbardella
Stafford, CT
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Perry Shafran via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> See, this is what I mean, when I get advice from some callers that say one
> thing and advice from other callers that say the complete opposite.
>
> I figure that there are lots of different people on the floor. Some
> people LIKE squares, believe it or not. Whenever I see squares called,
> yeah, there are some people who head for the sidelines, but generally I see
> dancers on the floor having a good time. So I learned some time ago that
> for everyone who grumbles about a square being called, there are 10 others
> who love it.
>
> As for insisting that every dance has two swings AND the neighbor swing
> MUST come before the partner swing, that seems to be a personal preference
> rather than a hard and fast rule. I think that most dancers don't really
> care which one comes first. I went to a dance weekend this past weekend
> where there were more than a few dances with no neighbor swing, and it
> appeared that everyone had a great time dancing.
>
> I have long been taught that variety is the spice of life, and people do
> enjoy squares mixed in with a contra, as well as varied choreography.
> Varied choreography makes the dance interesting. Hard and fast rules limit
> the choreography that you can do and excludes many all-time great dances
> that might have a neighbor swing or a partner swing first (like Joyride and
> Ramsay Chase). And let's not even talking about throwing in an occasional
> chestnut in there - we have to get rid of all those wonderful dances
> because they are "boring" by today's standards. (Except to those folks who
> love them of course!)
>
> Perry
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Cary Ravitz via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
> *To:* Shared_Weight_Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 24, 2015 10:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Callers] More on Programming
>
> Why swings in every dance - because that is a huge part of the contra
> experience, a swing with the person that you asked to dance.
>
> Why should the partner swing follow the neighbor swing - because this is
> an art form, not an exercise routine. The storyline of a contra is the
> uniting of partners, not the the breaking up of partners (that's my
> preference anyway). And in practical terms, I want to be with my partner at
> the end of a dance to thank them quickly before finding another partner.
>
> "Squares are just like contras, only you have to listen" - this is not
> correct.
>
> Some things that people to not like about squares -
>
> less movement/music connection due to lack of strict phrasing
> having to listen to the caller breaks the movement/music connection
> teaching time
> mixer squares breaks the partner connection
> visiting squares leave people "out of the dance" for long periods.
>
> I find squares and contras completely different.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:47 AM, George Mercer via Callers <
> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I may not be a good example or even that good a caller, but ... I like
> swings, I have no need to have a neighbor swing in every dance and most
> certainly don't care where in the dance the neighbor swing happens. That's
> making up rules for the sake of having rules. I like the buzz step, but to
> put it mildly there are many dancers with whom a buzz step is impossible,
> difficult or merely uncomfortable. I teach a walking swing and sometimes
> demonstrate a buzz step with a little time for practice. Far too many
> callers and beginner workshop instructors teach a buzz step in a way that
> promotes bouncing, which in turn makes swinging difficult or worse. I've
> also heard more than one caller-instructor tell dancers that to "give
> weight" (an inadequate term) they should lean back. Just kill me. As a
> dancer, I often combine a walking swing-with a buzz step -- especially if
> we have gotten out of sync with the music. I come down on to the floor when
> I think it's required. On two occasions recently while dancing, the person
> I was dancing with said, "Well, this a dance the caller has never actually
> danced before. If she or he had, she or he wouldn't have chosen it." Amen.
> I was at an dance recently where a mixer was called near the end of the
> evening. I'm not sure what that was all about. Once early in my limited
> calling career,just as the first dance got underway about 20 newcomers
> walked in. I then called several dances without swings, just to get them
> acclimated to moving in rhythm and with the music. I'll never do that
> again. I was too cautious and shouldn't have been. I honestly was afraid
> the experienced dancers were going to hurt me. And they say I can't learn.
> Perhaps my biggest peeve on the dance floor is the experienced dancers who
> insist on sharing their bad dance habits (swinging backwards, excessive and
> unexpected twirling -- I almost wrote twerking --, inappropriate dipping,
> showing how athletic and fancy they are, etc.) with new dancers rather than
> helping them learn the basic fundamentals, timing and courtesy. I love
> squares. Not everyone does, but I often explain to people in my square,
> "squares are just like contras, only you have to listen." And finally,
> callers, please stop telling people that when they reach the end of the
> line, "they're out." This seems to encourgae dancers to think, "Well now,
> I don't have to pay attention." While they are on the floor they should
> "stay in the dance." That just may be me. Thanks, George
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cary Ravitz
> caryravitz(a)gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote:
>
> My main concern is how to acquire that tension/counterweight in a swing, if
> you do not lean back.
Let momentum do the work. The way I teach swinging, I tell people to
stand nose-to-nose. Then I tell each of them to take a small half-step
to the left. If they twist, I tell them to go back to the nose-to-nose
and explain that it is critical that they stay facing the same direction
when they move left. Then I have them go into ballroom hold and start
walking forward, telling them to notice how the pressure of holding each
other just naturally forces them into a circle.
Particularly when I do this with people who've been twisting their
bodies, they go, "Wow, it's a lot easier this way."
When they start swinging a bit faster, that's when I talk about the
giving weight aspect of swinging. It's a matter of holding the swing
together, and you just don't need the tension until they're moving fast.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
I like a swing in every dance, but I agree with George that it is not necessary to have a neighbor swing in every dance. As a dancer, I'm happy to do a dance where I only swing my partner, especially if the dance has other interesting choreography that one couldn't get otherwise by squeezing two swings into it. I've noticed, for example, that I've been to more than one dance with two (or even three) swings in every dance where there never was a full hey figure the whole night. I like the full hey, smooth, flowing, whirly - and there are some dances with full heys and two swings, but overall, the emphasis on two swings can leave these out. Cary, you write quite fascinating and flowing dances with the rules that you've chosen, and I call many of them. But as a dancer I'm not sure I notice or enjoy a dance less if my swing in the B part is with my neighbor, unless it's the very last swing of the dance - and as a caller, I can change the last moves up so people swing their partner to avoid that if I wish.
On the other hand, if I'm calling a barn dance with no introduction and just getting people moving, I may do dances without swings, or use two-hand turns or elbow swings at best. I've also called contra on some rough ground at parks, where a walking swing was even a bit tough, and threw in one or two dances without swings that suited the terrain better. People seemed relieved about that.
Martha
On Jun 24, 2015, at 7:34 PM, Cary Ravitz via Callers wrote:
> Why swings in every dance - because that is a huge part of the contra experience, a swing with the person that you asked to dance.
>
> Why should the partner swing follow the neighbor swing - because this is an art form, not an exercise routine. The storyline of a contra is the uniting of partners, not the the breaking up of partners (that's my preference anyway). And in practical terms, I want to be with my partner at the end of a dance to thank them quickly before finding another partner.
>
> "Squares are just like contras, only you have to listen" - this is not correct.
>
> Some things that people to not like about squares -
>
> less movement/music connection due to lack of strict phrasing
> having to listen to the caller breaks the movement/music connection
> teaching time
> mixer squares breaks the partner connection
> visiting squares leave people "out of the dance" for long periods.
>
> I find squares and contras completely different.
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:47 AM, George Mercer via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> I may not be a good example or even that good a caller, but ... I like swings, I have no need to have a neighbor swing in every dance and most certainly don't care where in the dance the neighbor swing happens. That's making up rules for the sake of having rules. I like the buzz step, but to put it mildly there are many dancers with whom a buzz step is impossible, difficult or merely uncomfortable. I teach a walking swing and sometimes demonstrate a buzz step with a little time for practice. Far too many callers and beginner workshop instructors teach a buzz step in a way that promotes bouncing, which in turn makes swinging difficult or worse. I've also heard more than one caller-instructor tell dancers that to "give weight" (an inadequate term) they should lean back. Just kill me. As a dancer, I often combine a walking swing-with a buzz step -- especially if we have gotten out of sync with the music. I come down on to the floor when I think it's required. On two occasions recently while dancing, the person I was dancing with said, "Well, this a dance the caller has never actually danced before. If she or he had, she or he wouldn't have chosen it." Amen. I was at an dance recently where a mixer was called near the end of the evening. I'm not sure what that was all about. Once early in my limited calling career,just as the first dance got underway about 20 newcomers walked in. I then called several dances without swings, just to get them acclimated to moving in rhythm and with the music. I'll never do that again. I was too cautious and shouldn't have been. I honestly was afraid the experienced dancers were going to hurt me. And they say I can't learn. Perhaps my biggest peeve on the dance floor is the experienced dancers who insist on sharing their bad dance habits (swinging backwards, excessive and unexpected twirling -- I almost wrote twerking --, inappropriate dipping, showing how athletic and fancy they are, etc.) with new dancers rather than helping them learn the basic fundamentals, timing and courtesy. I love squares. Not everyone does, but I often explain to people in my square, "squares are just like contras, only you have to listen." And finally, callers, please stop telling people that when they reach the end of the line, "they're out." This seems to encourgae dancers to think, "Well now, I don't have to pay attention." While they are on the floor they should "stay in the dance." That just may be me. Thanks, George
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cary Ravitz
> caryravitz(a)gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
Someone in my community who teaches swings often likes to explain the
sharing of weight as, "If my partner let me go, I would stumble a step or
two, but not fall." Seems to be a good benchmark when used in conjunction
with some of these other explanations.
One I've had in my head for a while now but not actually used is explaining
it in terms of that amusement park ride where you're in a big, really
fast-rotating cylinder and the floor drops out--you're held against the
wall and it feels like your entire back is pushing against the wall. That's
how sharing weight in a swing should feel--it's not a lean (which, as
Jonathan aptly points out, to many people suggests a bend at the waist),
it's a sort of pressing back with your entire torso against your partner's
hand.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> I do 2 hand turn first.
> On Jun 24, 2015 4:22 PM, "Rich Sbardella via Callers" <
> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> My main concern is how to acquire that tension/counterweight in a swing,
>> if you do not lean back.
>> Rich
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers <
>> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/24/2015 11:29 AM, Rich Sbardella via Callers wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you descibe giving weight, and how do you teach it for circles,
>>>> allemandes, and, swings?
>>>> Rich
>>>> Stafford, CT
>>>>
>>>
>>> In my beginner sessions, I have them form a ring and then circle left
>>> and right a couple of times. Then I ask them to bend their elbows and feel
>>> "that springy tension between you and the dancers next to you. If you can
>>> keep that elasticity while you're connected to other dancers, then you're
>>> all supporting each other as you circle and turn, and it makes everything
>>> easier." And then we circle again, with the extra bit of sproing, and then
>>> do the same with allemandes. Just for fun, sometimes I'll have them go
>>> back to the floppy arms, just to feel the difference. I also let them know
>>> that with a little bit of tension in the connection, it's easier for the
>>> person they're dancing with to give them physical cues.
>>>
>>> And I know there's a better word than tension, and I'm pretty sure I've
>>> used it in the past, but right now I can't think of it.
>>>
>>> Kalia
>>> Sebastopol, CA
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
