Import1 January 2017

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
89 discussions

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

by Read Weaver via Callers

East coast GF English, to the extent it does anything specific, does left up/right down. West coast does right up/left down. http://lcfd.org/gf-ecd-calling-conventions.html <http://lcfd.org/gf-ecd-calling-conventions.html> (I think it’s a really good idea, btw, to avoid the jet = penis analogy. If someone wants to buy me one of these, https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3b/75/c1/3b75c16ce2c7c75f0d2e2dbf… <https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3b/75/c1/3b75c16ce2c7c75f0d2e2dbf…> , I’ll promise to wear it at dances that use jets/rubies.) Read Weaver Jamaica Plain, MA http://lcfd.org > On Jan 18, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Bob Morgan via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Angela reminded me of a point I've been thinking about for a while. Why not right palm up, left palm down? This would be symmetrical and role neutral. > > Bob > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using Jets and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the beginners' lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' palms face up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the ground." > > And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make for easy teaching. > > Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and Ladies. > > That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine. > > Happy calling, everyone! > > Angela

7 years, 3 months

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

by Angela DeCarlis via Callers

Agreed with Jeff totally, on both points. I teach role swap workshops periodically, and palm direction is the single best indicator of role there is. Ties, bands, pins, etc aren't nearly as versatile or useful, especially when you intend to switch roles mid-dance. Because of that, I'm pretty religious about teaching palm direction early and often. (Good question, though!) On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Jeff Kaufman <jeff.t.kaufman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I really like the current up/down system for (a) remembering which role > I'm dancing (b) signaling which role to others > > On Jan 18, 2017 11:49 AM, "Bob Morgan via Callers" < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> Angela reminded me of a point I've been thinking about for a while. Why >> not right palm up, left palm down? This would be symmetrical and role >> neutral. >> >> Bob >> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers < >> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >>> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using >>> Jets and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the >>> beginners' lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' >>> palms face up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the >>> ground." >>> >>> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly >>> that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make >>> for easy teaching. >>> >>> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral >>> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and >>> Ladies. >>> >>> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine. >>> >>> Happy calling, everyone! >>> >>> Angela >>> >>> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" < >>> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Not that Portland, the other Portland. ;-) >>>> >>>> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-d >>>> ancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/ >>>> >>>> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that >>>> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get >>>> away from "bands" and "bares". >>>> -- >>>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 >>>> http://rule6.info/ >>>> <*> <*> <*> >>>> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing list >>>> Callers(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 >> >>

7 years, 3 months

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

by Jeff Kaufman via Callers

I really like the current up/down system for (a) remembering which role I'm dancing (b) signaling which role to others On Jan 18, 2017 11:49 AM, "Bob Morgan via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Angela reminded me of a point I've been thinking about for a while. Why > not right palm up, left palm down? This would be symmetrical and role > neutral. > > Bob > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using >> Jets and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the >> beginners' lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' >> palms face up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the >> ground." >> >> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly >> that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make >> for easy teaching. >> >> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral >> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and >> Ladies. >> >> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine. >> >> Happy calling, everyone! >> >> Angela >> >> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" < >> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >>> Not that Portland, the other Portland. ;-) >>> >>> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-d >>> ancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/ >>> >>> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that >>> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get >>> away from "bands" and "bares". >>> -- >>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 >>> http://rule6.info/ >>> <*> <*> <*> >>> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing list >>> Callers(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 > >

7 years, 3 months

Re: [Callers] Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure

by April Blum via Callers

I recall dancing one called Doublin Back. And I have written one called Doublin Dublin. April Blum On Jan 16, 2017 5:20 PM, Tavi Merrill via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > Dance genealogy question: The figure first appearing in "Dublin Bay" (aka "We'll Wed and We'll Bed," its title in Playford) morphed in contra into a modified "lines of four down the hall." > > I know a version of it from Sue Rosen's dance "Handsome Young Maids," where dancers facing down take four steps forwards, turn alone, and continue down the hall with four backward steps, then repeat the figure to return up the hall. > > I'm curious how many other contras this figure, or a version of it, appears in. Does anyone know of other dances? And any astute dance historians out there know what the first contra to use this figure is? > > Tavi

7 years, 3 months

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

by Bob Morgan via Callers

Angela reminded me of a point I've been thinking about for a while. Why not right palm up, left palm down? This would be symmetrical and role neutral. Bob On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using Jets > and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the beginners' > lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' palms face > up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the ground." > > And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly > that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make > for easy teaching. > > Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral > language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and > Ladies. > > That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine. > > Happy calling, everyone! > > Angela > > On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight. > net> wrote: > >> Not that Portland, the other Portland. ;-) >> >> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra- >> dancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/ >> >> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that >> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get >> away from "bands" and "bares". >> -- >> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 >> http://rule6.info/ >> <*> <*> <*> >> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers(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 > >

7 years, 3 months

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

by Aahz via Callers

Not that Portland, the other Portland. ;-) http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-dancing-takes-a-… I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get away from "bands" and "bares". -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

7 years, 3 months

Re: [Callers] Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure

by Linda Leslie via Callers

Al Olson used the move in his dance “Leaving Home”. It was published in Give & Take by Larry Jennings in 2004. Larry spent a number of years putting this book together, so the dance was written well before this. I did not find the dance in Zesty Contras, Larry’s fist book, published in 1988; but this might mean that Larry did not have space to include it, rather than it had not been written yet. If I were of a betting nature…..I would bet that the dance was from the 1980’s, maybe 1990’s. Linda On Jan 16, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Tavi Merrill via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Dance genealogy question: The figure first appearing in "Dublin Bay" (aka "We'll Wed and We'll Bed," its title in Playford) morphed in contra into a modified "lines of four down the hall." > > I know a version of it from Sue Rosen's dance "Handsome Young Maids," where dancers facing down take four steps forwards, turn alone, and continue down the hall with four backward steps, then repeat the figure to return up the hall. > > I'm curious how many other contras this figure, or a version of it, appears in. Does anyone know of other dances? And any astute dance historians out there know what the first contra to use this figure is? > > Tavi > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

7 years, 3 months

Re: [Callers] Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure

by Mac Mckeever via Callers

One I call frequently is Jim's Reel by Steve Snurr A1 Do Si Di N 1 1/4 ti WL - ladies in center, Rt hand to N Remember this WL - we will come back to it Bal Line - Trun N by R 1/2 - Gents pull by LA2 B&SW PB1 Down hall 4 steps - turn alone - back up 4 steps For 4 steps - turn alone back up 4 stepsB2 Cir L 5 places until you can collapse to original WL Bal (on last 4 beats)A1 walk for to new N - as dance starts over Great dance Mac McKeever From: Tavi Merrill via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 4:20 PM Subject: [Callers] Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure Dance genealogy question: The figure first appearing in "Dublin Bay" (aka "We'll Wed and We'll Bed," its title in Playford) morphed in contra into a modified "lines of four down the hall." I know a version of it from Sue Rosen's dance "Handsome Young Maids," where dancers facing down take four steps forwards, turn alone, and continue down the hall with four backward steps, then repeat the figure to return up the hall. I'm curious how many other contras this figure, or a version of it, appears in. Does anyone know of other dances? And any astute dance historians out there know what the first contra to use this figure is? Tavi _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

7 years, 3 months

Re: [Callers] Totals for taxes

by Rich Sbardella via Callers

Here is a page from the IRS website regarding hobby vs for profit business. https://www.irs.gov/uac/is-your-hobby-a-for-profit-endeavor Rich Sbardella On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Tony Parkes via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Luke Donforth wrote: > > <<I've already had two inquiries, so I should specify, the $8000 was > income paid not counting airplane tickets. It didn't remove mileage > reimbursement, CDSS membership and insurance, etc. > > Net comes to about $5000.>> > > > > Luke, does your “net” figure represent what you have left after **all** > expenses? Have you deducted 54 cents per mile driven (the IRS rate for > 2016), whether or not you were reimbursed? (The alternative is to figure > actual car expenses and deduct the percentage of those that corresponds to > business use of the car, but it’s simpler to take the mileage allowance.) > If you own any sound equipment, whether it’s a mic or a full system, have > you expensed or depreciated each piece? (I’m not an accountant, but our > accountants have always told us it’s OK to expense relatively small > purchases rather than bother with depreciating them.) > > > > The one expense we don’t bother listing is meals on the road. The IRS > allows only 50 percent of those to be written off (rule adopted in response > to the three-martini business lunch); much of the time we get fed by our > hosts; we tend to eat cheaply when we’re paying out of pocket; and we > figure we would have spent that much on food anyway. But all other expenses > get itemized on Schedule C. > > > > In a typical year our net (taxable) figure is less than half our gross. I > agree that it’s a good idea to think about these things as one weighs how > intently to pursue calling or playing for dances. I used to go anywhere for > any amount of money, just for the joy of calling. Somewhere along the line > I realized that I was losing money on many of my gigs, and I got more > careful about pay scale vs. distance traveled. > > > > For many years my rule has been “for love or money” – both is better, but > one or the other is essential. If I suspect it’s going to be a tough gig > (e.g. an open bar or a “family” dance where the parents won’t join in), I > quote high enough that I won’t kick myself later. Conversely, I’ll go out > for short money if it’s a chance to work with some treasured > friends/colleagues, or if it’s a new series that wants help getting off the > ground, or if I get to call lots of Merry-Go-Round-type squares <evil grin>. > > > > Not specifically addressed to Luke: There’s a common belief that if the > IRS decides your calling or playing is a hobby, you’re not allowed to > deduct any expenses. On this subject, the IRS says only that losses can’t > exceed gross income, so presumably you can deduct expenses down to the > break-even point. Note that if you’ve made a profit in three of the last > five years including the most recent year, the IRS assumes it’s a > legitimate business. > > > > Tony Parkes > > Billerica, Mass. > > > > *From:* Callers [mailto:callers-bounces@lists.sharedweight.net] *On > Behalf Of *Luke Donforth via Callers > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 17, 2017 7:56 AM > *To:* Callers(a)Lists.Sharedweight.net > *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Totals for taxes > > > > I've already had two inquires, so I should specify, the $8000 was income > paid not counting airplane tickets. It didn't remove mileage reimbursement, > CDSS membership and insurance, etc. > > Net comes to about $5000. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

7 years, 3 months

Re: [Callers] Totals for taxes

by Tony Parkes via Callers

Luke Donforth wrote: <<I've already had two inquiries, so I should specify, the $8000 was income paid not counting airplane tickets. It didn't remove mileage reimbursement, CDSS membership and insurance, etc. Net comes to about $5000.>> Luke, does your “net” figure represent what you have left after *all* expenses? Have you deducted 54 cents per mile driven (the IRS rate for 2016), whether or not you were reimbursed? (The alternative is to figure actual car expenses and deduct the percentage of those that corresponds to business use of the car, but it’s simpler to take the mileage allowance.) If you own any sound equipment, whether it’s a mic or a full system, have you expensed or depreciated each piece? (I’m not an accountant, but our accountants have always told us it’s OK to expense relatively small purchases rather than bother with depreciating them.) The one expense we don’t bother listing is meals on the road. The IRS allows only 50 percent of those to be written off (rule adopted in response to the three-martini business lunch); much of the time we get fed by our hosts; we tend to eat cheaply when we’re paying out of pocket; and we figure we would have spent that much on food anyway. But all other expenses get itemized on Schedule C. In a typical year our net (taxable) figure is less than half our gross. I agree that it’s a good idea to think about these things as one weighs how intently to pursue calling or playing for dances. I used to go anywhere for any amount of money, just for the joy of calling. Somewhere along the line I realized that I was losing money on many of my gigs, and I got more careful about pay scale vs. distance traveled. For many years my rule has been “for love or money” – both is better, but one or the other is essential. If I suspect it’s going to be a tough gig (e.g. an open bar or a “family” dance where the parents won’t join in), I quote high enough that I won’t kick myself later. Conversely, I’ll go out for short money if it’s a chance to work with some treasured friends/colleagues, or if it’s a new series that wants help getting off the ground, or if I get to call lots of Merry-Go-Round-type squares <evil grin>. Not specifically addressed to Luke: There’s a common belief that if the IRS decides your calling or playing is a hobby, you’re not allowed to deduct any expenses. On this subject, the IRS says only that losses can’t exceed gross income, so presumably you can deduct expenses down to the break-even point. Note that if you’ve made a profit in three of the last five years including the most recent year, the IRS assumes it’s a legitimate business. Tony Parkes Billerica, Mass. From: Callers [mailto:callers-bounces@lists.sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of Luke Donforth via Callers Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 7:56 AM To: Callers(a)Lists.Sharedweight.net Subject: Re: [Callers] Totals for taxes I've already had two inquires, so I should specify, the $8000 was income paid not counting airplane tickets. It didn't remove mileage reimbursement, CDSS membership and insurance, etc. Net comes to about $5000.

7 years, 3 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1 January 2017