Import1 January 2016

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
59 discussions

Re: [Callers] Weary of the same discussions

by Jack Mitchell via Callers

If you go to the link at the bottom of every message you can change your subscription status to the digest. On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:30 PM Amy Carroll via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > I'm sorry, but it really isn't enough to just ignore the posts. They fill > my inbox and become another pile of stuff to filter through trying to find > the email I really need/want to read. > > I feel as though this discussion happened already, quite recently, and > it's just the same thing again. No one is convincing anyone. It all > started with the simple announcement about a lecture, and then some snarky > comments re sparked this entire discussion. Yuck. > > Questions: > #1) Is it possible to recieve a daily digest of this list instead of each > individual message? Like you can do with yahoo groups. Then I wouldn't > mind all the junk so much. > > #2) Is there a facebook equivalent of this list? Those are nice, because > when you don't have time, you don't bother to look. If you don't comment, > you don't see the whole discussion unless you really go looking for it. I > would appreciate the discussion, even the repeated discussion, that > happens here a lot more if it were not in my email. > > Other solutions? > > yours, > > Amy Carroll > amy(a)calleramy.com > 206-330-7408 > http://www.calleramy.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > -- Jack Mitchell Durham, NC

8 years, 11 months

[Callers] 9-person dance?

by Richard Fischer via Callers

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

8 years, 11 months

[Callers] Fwd: 9-person dance?

by Martha Wild via Callers

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

8 years, 11 months

[Callers] Weary of the same discussions

by Amy Carroll via Callers

8 years, 11 months

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

by Laur via Callers

blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Janet, just saying. I found your post fascinating. I stopped following / reading the g posts. Laurie Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad On Friday, January 22, 2016, 10:23 PM, Janet Bertog via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: So, it has occurred to me that I, myself, have left some groups because this discussion has gotten me very worked up, and here I am again, commenting on it. I apologize, I know I have been um ... out of sorts ... recently and have reasons that I suppose I should not share publicly. Anyway, unless someone specifically wants a reply from me, I will no longer post on the subject to save my health. Ja et On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Janet Bertog via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: Prelude: This post is tangential to the gypsy discussion and likely controversial. If you are not interested, delete now. Moderators, if you feel it is not an appropriate topic for this list tell me and I will cease any future posts on the matter. So, let's pretend for a moment that gypsy has been proven to originate from the term used to refer to the Roma (we all know that I do not believe this), or that it doesn't matter what it's origin is, the fact that it does have one meaning that refers to the Roma people is all that matters (we all know that I also do not believe this). Let us also pretend for a minute that it doesn't matter that in American English the term has come to mean a free-spirited traveler. We are going to pretend that gypsy only is a racial slur against Romani. First I will point out that Romani (Roma, I have seen both used, not sure which is "most correct"), and Romani advocates, who feel that the word Gypsy is a slur, always capitalize the word to enforce that it is a reference to the ethnicity. So, first of all, if it not capitalized, does that not mean that it does not refer to the ethnicity (I asked Carol this, she did not respond). But that is not really what this post is about. So, this discussion about removing gypsy from our dance lexicon is due to the fact that the Roma are holding on to their heritage and the use of the word as a slur against them (yes, I recognize that in some places, the Roma are still persecuted today). When I have asked Roma or Romani advocates about the word, the response I usually get is something along the lines of "well, what if the move was called the jew instead"? Well, I'm not jew, so I don't really relate to that either. In fact, I one of the least racially persecuted groups in existence it would seem, although I am female and blond. But, I digress. Among the discussions, I have been informed that Gypsy refers to the ethnicity, not the lifestyle and that the practice of the Romani people to travel was forced upon them. However, I have read that, in fact, many of the persecutions were just the opposite - forcing them to settle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Persecutions). Conversely, the ethnic term can be used as a slur. For example: jew - someone who is stingypolish - a stupid person So, every single person in North America is an immigrant (yes, even the "Native Americans, although much earlier than others). Every single person's ancestor who moved to America came to America for a reason. Some were forced (such as slaves) but many came here to escape what they were leaving behind and to hopefully provide a better life for their families and themselves. So, why is it then that so many racial groups who move to America to escape their history, choose to also hold on to their history? This is not just Roma, and it is, oddly enough, not all races. Very few Germans or English in America refer to themselves as Germans or English (in Cincinnati we have an Oktoberfest every year, owing to the large number of people of German descent, but for 360 days of the year, these people are American). If these people moved to America, why are they not just Americans? Why are they holding on to an ethnic past? When I ask a Roma why they use the word Gypsy to refer to themselves, the most common answer I get is "people know the word Gypsy, but do not know what a Roma is". So, if people do not even know what a Roma is, how can they be persecuting them? If people who move to America want to be American, why do they hold on to their ethnicity and continue to be offended by words that refer to that ethnicity (this is a genuine question, I cannot at all relate to this and so it makes no sense to me). This is not just the Roma, any group of people who come to America and yet hold on to their ethnic traditions do not make a lot of sense to me, especially if they are 2nd, 3rd, 4th or more generation Americans who have never even been to the place of origin for their ethnicity. According to the US Census, for the first time in 2000 a significant number of people responded to the question about ancestry by stating that they were American jumped from 12.4 million in 1990 to 20.2 million in 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity). In the most recent census report on the census page (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtm…) the top groups of identified ancestry in the United States was: American 20 millionGerman 15 million (slurs include boche due to the stereotype of germans being hard-headed, Fritz, Huns meaning savage and ruthless, Jerry, Kraut from saurkraut, squarehead from the stereotype of the shape of their heads)English 9 million (slurs include Gringo, Pom, Pommie, etc)Irish 9 million (bog irish refrerring to a low class Irish, Dogan possibly from Dugan - an Irish surname, Mick, Paddy - which has been embraced by Irish even though it was meant to be derogatory, Pikey - an irish travel like gypsy, tinker - an irish traveler like a gypsy, wigger - also used to refer to people who might be called "white trash" or "rednecks") Italian 7 million (slurs include dago, eyetie, greaseball, Guido - an American Italian, Guinea - referring to the color of their skin, Swamp Guinea)European 3 millionPolish 3 million (slurs include Polak, and in fact referring to someone as polish is often a slur in itself)Subsaharan African 2.4 million (lots, most of you know)West Indian 2 million (this is a lot of different nations, so it is hard to look up)Scottish 1.7 million (jock - most of us do not consider jocks derogatory, Sawny or Sandy, Teuchter, and Tinker is also used in Scotland)Norwegian 1.5 million (surprisingly none were listed)Scotch-Irish 1.4 million (this is a mixed ancestry, so slurs of both Scottish and Irish origin could refer to them)Dutch 1 million (cheesehead, frog - as a stereotype of being marsh dwellers, Yankee originally referred to Dutch settlers in America, Russian 1 million (katsap, Moskal, russian pig)Swedish almost 1 million (reference for ethnic slurs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs). It is true that most of these words are not used in the English language, but who is going to stop have kraut on their sausage because it is an ethnic slur?) Romani are not reported, likely grouped as "other", but other sources indicate there are approximately 1 million Romani in America today. I provide this list to point out that, with one exception, almost no one on this list is offended by people calling them by their ethnicity, or terms referring to their ethnicity and, in fact, more and more people are leaving their ancestry in the past and accepting that they are just American. So, why should Roma people be allowed to claim the word gypsy and declare it a slur against them, when it is very clear that, especially in America, it is rarely intended to be a slur, since most people just think Roma are Americans and do not use the word to refer to the Roma people? And in regards to "how would you feel if ...", if a move was called a blond because you walked around in a silly, disoriented fashion, I would laugh and wonder why we have such a chaotic dance move in contra dance - oh right, those are mixers. If I ever called mixers, I would start saying "blond with your partner around the room and find another couple", but I don't, because I hate mixers). Janet On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Lindsay Morris via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: I'm about to leave this list because I'm so appalled at the amount of time spent on this discussion. So many smart, good people: surely we all have something better to do? On Friday, January 22, 2016, via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: Honestly, it will be next December when I sing Christmas carols again :-) > On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, via Callers wrote: >> >> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread >> ignorance of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem >> with the verb "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to >> exonerate a word despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist >> etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a word falsely gets attributed to >> a category in which it doesn't belong is irrelevant. If two separate >> meanings/derivations converge to an identically spelled modern word, >> I don't believe the innocent word (when used in its original context) >> deserves to be written off. Let us truly abide by what you claim to >> support: its current use *is* relevant. > > Let me know the next time you use "gay" to mean something roughly similar > to "happy" or "joyful", but for which there is no direct substitute. > Despite my support for queer rights (given that two of my partners are > bisexual, among other reasons), that's the one real loss I still feel. > -- > Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ > <*> <*> <*> > Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(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 -- -------------------- Lindsay Morris CEO, TSMworks Tel. 1-859-539-9900 lindsay(a)tsmworks.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 _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] Choreography and Copyright

by Laur via Callers

blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } I agree with everything Janet said. In addition before I'd publish anything I'd ask permission then credit the author. Laurie p Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad On Friday, January 22, 2016, 7:11 PM, Janet Bertog via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Under what circumstances do we have the moral and/or legal right to: > 1) Call a dance written by someone else? This is part of the folk process and the best way to get dances in circulation. If people only called their own dances or had to pay royalties to call other people's dances, a lot of dances would never get called. > 2) Publish a dance written by someone else? No. The choreographer should publish their dances, unless they ask someone else to do it. I know some choreographers don't want their dances published, for some reason. > 3) Modify, or borrow from, a dance written by someone else? If you modify a dance in a very minor way, my policy is to say it is a variation of that dance and credit the original choreographer. If you borrow a move or sequence from a dance, I personally believe you should credit the origin of the move or sequence in a foot note when you publish it. Janet _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 11 months

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

by Janet Bertog via Callers

So, it has occurred to me that I, myself, have left some groups because this discussion has gotten me very worked up, and here I am again, commenting on it. I apologize, I know I have been um ... out of sorts ... recently and have reasons that I suppose I should not share publicly. Anyway, unless someone specifically wants a reply from me, I will no longer post on the subject to save my health. Ja et On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Janet Bertog via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Prelude: This post is tangential to the gypsy discussion and likely > controversial. If you are not interested, delete now. Moderators, if you > feel it is not an appropriate topic for this list tell me and I will cease > any future posts on the matter. > > So, let's pretend for a moment that gypsy has been proven to originate > from the term used to refer to the Roma (we all know that I do not believe > this), or that it doesn't matter what it's origin is, the fact that it does > have one meaning that refers to the Roma people is all that matters (we all > know that I also do not believe this). Let us also pretend for a minute > that it doesn't matter that in American English the term has come to mean a > free-spirited traveler. We are going to pretend that gypsy only is a > racial slur against Romani. > > First I will point out that Romani (Roma, I have seen both used, not sure > which is "most correct"), and Romani advocates, who feel that the word > Gypsy is a slur, always capitalize the word to enforce that it is a > reference to the ethnicity. So, first of all, if it not capitalized, does > that not mean that it does not refer to the ethnicity (I asked Carol this, > she did not respond). But that is not really what this post is about. > > So, this discussion about removing gypsy from our dance lexicon is due to > the fact that the Roma are holding on to their heritage and the use of the > word as a slur against them (yes, I recognize that in some places, the Roma > are still persecuted today). When I have asked Roma or Romani advocates > about the word, the response I usually get is something along the lines of > "well, what if the move was called the jew instead"? Well, I'm not jew, so > I don't really relate to that either. In fact, I one of the least racially > persecuted groups in existence it would seem, although I am female and > blond. But, I digress. Among the discussions, I have been informed that > Gypsy refers to the ethnicity, not the lifestyle and that the practice of > the Romani people to travel was forced upon them. However, I have read > that, in fact, many of the persecutions were just the opposite - forcing > them to settle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Persecutions). > > > Conversely, the ethnic term can be used as a slur. For example: > > jew - someone who is stingy > polish - a stupid person > > So, every single person in North America is an immigrant (yes, even the > "Native Americans, although much earlier than others). Every single > person's ancestor who moved to America came to America for a reason. Some > were forced (such as slaves) but many came here to escape what they were > leaving behind and to hopefully provide a better life for their families > and themselves. So, why is it then that so many racial groups who move to > America to escape their history, choose to also hold on to their history? > This is not just Roma, and it is, oddly enough, not all races. Very few > Germans or English in America refer to themselves as Germans or English (in > Cincinnati we have an Oktoberfest every year, owing to the large number of > people of German descent, but for 360 days of the year, these people are > American). If these people moved to America, why are they not just > Americans? Why are they holding on to an ethnic past? When I ask a Roma > why they use the word Gypsy to refer to themselves, the most common answer > I get is "people know the word Gypsy, but do not know what a Roma is". So, > if people do not even know what a Roma is, how can they be persecuting > them? If people who move to America want to be American, why do they hold > on to their ethnicity and continue to be offended by words that refer to > that ethnicity (this is a genuine question, I cannot at all relate to this > and so it makes no sense to me). This is not just the Roma, any group of > people who come to America and yet hold on to their ethnic traditions do > not make a lot of sense to me, especially if they are 2nd, 3rd, 4th or > more generation Americans who have never even been to the place of origin > for their ethnicity. > > According to the US Census, for the first time in 2000 a significant > number of people responded to the question about ancestry by stating that > they were American jumped from 12.4 million in 1990 to 20.2 million in 2000 > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity). In the most recent > census report on the census page ( > http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtm…) > the top groups of identified ancestry in the United States was: > > American 20 million > German 15 million (slurs include boche due to the stereotype of germans > being hard-headed, Fritz, Huns meaning savage and ruthless, Jerry, Kraut > from saurkraut, squarehead from the stereotype of the shape of their heads) > English 9 million (slurs include Gringo, Pom, Pommie, etc) > Irish 9 million (bog irish refrerring to a low class Irish, Dogan possibly > from Dugan - an Irish surname, Mick, Paddy - which has been embraced by > Irish even though it was meant to be derogatory, Pikey - an irish travel > like gypsy, tinker - an irish traveler like a gypsy, wigger - also used to > refer to people who might be called "white trash" or "rednecks") > Italian 7 million (slurs include dago, eyetie, greaseball, Guido - an > American Italian, Guinea - referring to the color of their skin, Swamp > Guinea) > European 3 million > Polish 3 million (slurs include Polak, and in fact referring to someone as > polish is often a slur in itself) > Subsaharan African 2.4 million (lots, most of you know) > West Indian 2 million (this is a lot of different nations, so it is hard > to look up) > Scottish 1.7 million (jock - most of us do not consider jocks derogatory, > Sawny or Sandy, Teuchter, and Tinker is also used in Scotland) > Norwegian 1.5 million (surprisingly none were listed) > Scotch-Irish 1.4 million (this is a mixed ancestry, so slurs of both > Scottish and Irish origin could refer to them) > Dutch 1 million (cheesehead, frog - as a stereotype of being marsh > dwellers, Yankee originally referred to Dutch settlers in America, > Russian 1 million (katsap, Moskal, russian pig) > Swedish almost 1 million > (reference for ethnic slurs: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs). It is true that > most of these words are not used in the English language, but who is going > to stop have kraut on their sausage because it is an ethnic slur?) > > Romani are not reported, > likely grouped as "other", but other sources indicate there are > approximately 1 million Romani in America today. I provide this list to > point out that, with one exception, almost no one on this list is offended > by people calling them by their ethnicity, or terms referring to their > ethnicity and, in fact, more and more people are leaving their ancestry in > the past and accepting that they are just American. > > So, why should Roma people be allowed to claim the word gypsy and declare > it a slur against them, when it is very clear that, especially in America, > it is rarely intended to be a slur, since most people just think Roma are > Americans and do not use the word to refer to the Roma people? > > And in regards to "how would you feel if ...", if a move was called a > blond because you walked around in a silly, disoriented fashion, I would > laugh and wonder why we have such a chaotic dance move in contra dance - oh > right, those are mixers. If I ever called mixers, I would start saying > "blond with your partner around the room and find another couple", but I > don't, because I hate mixers). > > Janet > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Lindsay Morris via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> >> I'm about to leave this list because I'm so appalled at the amount of >> time spent on this discussion. So many smart, good people: surely we all >> have something better to do? >> >> >> On Friday, January 22, 2016, via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Honestly, it will be next December when I sing Christmas carols again :-) >>> >>> > On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via Callers < >>> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, via Callers wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread >>> >> ignorance of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem >>> >> with the verb "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to >>> >> exonerate a word despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist >>> >> etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a word falsely gets attributed to >>> >> a category in which it doesn't belong is irrelevant. If two separate >>> >> meanings/derivations converge to an identically spelled modern word, >>> >> I don't believe the innocent word (when used in its original context) >>> >> deserves to be written off. Let us truly abide by what you claim to >>> >> support: its current use *is* relevant. >>> > >>> > Let me know the next time you use "gay" to mean something roughly >>> similar >>> > to "happy" or "joyful", but for which there is no direct substitute. >>> > Despite my support for queer rights (given that two of my partners are >>> > bisexual, among other reasons), that's the one real loss I still feel. >>> > -- >>> > Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 >>> http://rule6.info/ >>> > <*> <*> <*> >>> > Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Callers mailing list >>> > Callers(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 >>> >> >> >> -- >> -------------------- >> Lindsay Morris >> CEO, TSMworks >> Tel. 1-859-539-9900 >> lindsay(a)tsmworks.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 > >

8 years, 11 months

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

by Karin Neils via Callers

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

8 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] Run its course?

by Seth Seeger via Callers

Ron, I am carefully not policing what discussions are allowed. I’m simply asking people to ask themselves if the conversation has gone far enough. Is what they are going to say really going to further the conversation? I was pretty careful not to police. However, I agree about hitting the delete key quickly if you’re not interested in a conversation. Seth > On Jan 22, 2016, at 1:34 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > When I find topics in shared weight that I don't care to participate in, I ignore them. > > Please don't police what we are allowed to discuss or not discuss. > > On Jan 22, 2016 1:01 PM, "Michael Fuerst via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > During a contra dance, the eighth beat of music indicates to the participants when to exit from the circular gypsy figure. The ongoing discussion lacks such luxury > > Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801 217 239 5844 <tel:217%20239%205844> > > > On Friday, January 22, 2016 11:50 AM, Seth Seeger via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > > > Dear callers, > > Perhaps it is time to ask yourself, “has this gypsy discussion run its course?” Are any more replies truly adding to the conversation? I imagine that at this point, no one’s mind is going to be changed… > > Thank you for considering! > Seth > > > > https://xkcd.com/386/ <https://xkcd.com/386/> > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net <http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-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

8 years, 11 months

Re: [Callers] 9-person dance?

by Martha Wild via Callers

There’s a really neat oddball one by Erik Hoffman called “The Millennium Bug”. Not sure what book of his it is in, though. There’s another traditional one called “Pride of the Pingle” for four couples +1. Line up as for a reel of four couples, doesn’t really matter if it is proper or not. The lone person stands at the top center of the set above the first couple and faces down. Pride of the Pingle 9 people, 4 couple (proper) set and one extra Traditional A1) All up a double and back without taking hands, while the “Pingle” goes down a double and back between them, 2X A2) All allemande right partners half way, turn around and allemande left partners half way back. While this happens, the “Pingle” joins in the first couple’s allemande with their right hand to form a little right hand star of three. This moves the “Pingle” down one place, and they can then stick out their left hand and join the left allemande of couple 2 as a little group of 3. This is then repeated, with all continuing to allemande right partners half way, allemande left partners half way back, as the “Pingle” joins in right with couple 3, and then left with couple 4 to reach the bottom. A lot to say but easier to do. B1) The “Pingle” then joins on to one or other of the long lines (in the old strictly proper form they would join their gender role line, but nowadays and in family dances it’s just join a line). The lines of four and five then go forward and back twice, pushing the longer line up the set to push out a new unmatched “Pingle” at the top. B2) All then swing the person across from them that they are matched with, except the new “Pingle”. I heard it called “Pride of the Pingle” but somewhere I also saw it as “Pride of the Dingle” so I’m not perfectly sure which name it is. Martha > On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Andy Shore via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > The Prime Minister aka The New Parliament House Jig > > http://www.barndances.org.uk/dance-detail.php?danceNameParam=the-new-parlia… <http://www.barndances.org.uk/dance-detail.php?danceNameParam=the-new-parlia…> > https://youtu.be/wa_zj_vY-RI <https://youtu.be/wa_zj_vY-RI> > > I descends into the usual chaos, but lots of fun > > /Andy Shore > Santa Cruz, CA > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Richard Fischer via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > Can anyone suggest a 9-person dance? I'm aware of the traditional Nine-Pin, and Monkey in the Middle by Sherry Nevins. > > Thanks! > > Richard Fischer > > Princeton, NJ > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net <http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net> > > > > -- > /Andy Shore > http://andyshore.com/ <http://andyshore.com/> > > best email - andyshore(a)gmail.com <mailto:andyshore@gmail.com> > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 11 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1 January 2016