Semantics, definitions, and gobbledegook teacher-speak

[dchester]

We seem to have a recurring "issue" as of late. Threads are getting hijacked in a way that is making the place less friendly, and thus is discouraging people from posting as often. IMO the posts below, more or less sum up the major issue(s) from a couple different perspectives.

Here is the problem. Time and time again on this forum, threads get derailed not because people disagree with the definition, but because they disagree with how the definition is presented.

And its getting pretty old.
FTFY. ;) Somehow, discussions about AT seemed to have hummed along just fine...until recently. Sure there were some misunderstandings, but usually pretty quickly ironed out and the actual topic at hand could be discussed. And now...not so much.

Very well said.
They disagree with the definition that is presented.

Which sadly often differs from the definition that the presenter intended, particularly where the presenter is handicapped by gobbledegook teacher-speak as in the case of bordertangoman for example.

The solution: ask the presenter to define his terms. IME such a request leads either to enlightenment...

Or silence - which is itself enlightening.

As I see it, a few of the newer people don't like (what has been) some of the commonly used terminology around here, and appear to be expecting us to conform to how they say it should be. They also don't seem to understand that some of us aren't going to change how we communicate just because they say it is incorrect. This puts us at a stalemate.

Therefore, I am asking that arguments (or prolonged discussions) about disagreement in semantics, terminology, etc., be moved to this thread, thus enabling the other threads to keep the discussion on less inflamatory subjects (like tango).

This forum has always had a more friendly atmosphere than forums like Tango-L, and speaking for myself, I'd like it to stay that way.

If people have other suggestion for how to restore the atmosphere here to a more fun and friendly place, this is a good place to post those as well.

[Ampster]

This forum has always had a more friendly atmosphere than forums like Tango-L, and speaking for myself, I'd like it to stay that way.

If people have other suggestion for how to restore the atmosphere here to a more fun and friendly place, this is a good place to post those as well.

Bravo dchester!

I'd like it to stay that way too. This is after-all, DF and not the other venues/forums.

I for one like to discuss tango. Not someone's aggressive rant, rave, self-aggrandizement, over-interpretation, and/or over-analysis on irrelevancies.

[Dave Bailey]

OK, as I want to comment on a post, I'll put my comment here:

In my mind there are rules and there is styling, and they are two distinct things

Rules are not given by people, but by the laws of physics (gravity, momentum, etc.) and anatomy (joint function, muscle attachments, etc.). These rules apply to all dancers. Anyone can try to break the rules, but the rules will assert themselves.

Styling is defined by people and is a matter of convention. These “rules” can be broken, but I think it’s wise and appropriate for dancers to learn these rules, until they might decide to break them. I think that if a dancer knows the rules but feels drawn in a different direction, he/she should break the rules, because breaking them leads to the dancer’s most personal expression, which I think is foremost in social dancing.

There is also the idea of floor craft. These are social rules. If you break them, hopefully, you are either ostracized or taken outside and pantsed.

I like this definition, but I'd expand on it; the way I see it, there's a spectrum.

For example, to take 5 points on this spectrum:


Laws: Unbreakable and literally universal. Laws of physics, anatomy and so on. "Ye canna break the laws of physics, Captain" kind of thing.
Rules: Universally-agreed codes of dancing. "Respect your partner", for example. You can break these, but you shouldn't.
Guidelines: "Good practice" instructions. Should be followed unless there's a good reason not to, or unless you're experienced / skillful enough to do it your way.
Interpretations: the way a specific teacher, class or community does things. May be good, may be bad.
Styling: how you dance individually. Up to you.

Basically, these get narrower and narrower; more and more local, ranging from the universal to the individual. And a lot of the confusion and conflict we get is when we tend to extrapolate, and confuse (for example) local interpretations with global rules.

As a model, how does that sound?

[borisvian13]

I think dchester's post mixes two completely different issues in a rather unfortunate way. One is the lack of appropriate manners in certain individuals and the other is the (non)necessity of discussion on terminology and semantics. Why these should be related?

I, for example, happen to think that the current mainstream terminology describing the mechanics behind AT is profoundly inadequate and self-contradictory and I was about to propose a new, relatively coherent I hope, one. But now I'm worried that this could be taken as an unfriendly act against the beliefs of the majority in this forum:)...

[Dave Bailey]

I, for example, happen to think that the current mainstream terminology describing the mechanics behind AT is profoundly inadequate and self-contradictory
Me too.

In fact, I think it's just jargon. And inconsistently-used jargon at that.

and I was about to propose a new, relatively coherent I hope, one. But now I'm worried that this could be taken as an unfriendly act against the beliefs of the majority in this forum:)...
Go for it - I'd like to see and comment on that.

[Me]

Semantics is one of many vehicles used here to derail discussions about dance. It's one reason why I just don't bother much anymore.

But, I'll give it a go. I like the idea of replying to some of that nonsense with a link to this board and telling people "go there", LOL

If it works, my vote is to also open threads dedicated to "authenticity of movement," "authenticity of music," and "nationalism."

[Steve Pastor]

1. Members make up the dance forums and members are the most important part of all, with friendly and active participation strongly encouraged. We want your experience here to be enjoyable and informative.

2. The Dance Forums aims to provide quality information about partner dancing of all kinds in a friendly and supportive environment.

3. All dance related topics and perspectives are welcome and we encourage a dynamic environment with debates, news, and personal stories.

4. Please do not engage in name calling, attacks on a person's character, deliberately inflammatory remarks, group stereotypes, or profanity (no matter how subtle – we take all such activities seriously).

I think some of our Guidelines address part of what dchester is referring to.
I've bolded the parts that I think a pertinent.
(He can correct me if I'm wrong about all of this.)

Another goal here, though is to "encourage a dynamic environment with debates".

Problem is, some people don't know how to have a "dynamic .. debate" while also allowing for the friendly and supportive part, and without getting into the deliberately inflammatory remarks thing.

If you have specific concerns you can use the Private Messages to Staff box, or send a Personal Message to one of the moderators. I see my PMs every time I log on.
Several of you are aware of those options and have used them in the past!

[Zoopsia59]

I think dchester's post mixes two completely different issues in a rather unfortunate way. One is the lack of appropriate manners in certain individuals and the other is the (non)necessity of discussion on terminology and semantics. Why these should be related?

I, for example, happen to think that the current mainstream terminology describing the mechanics behind AT is profoundly inadequate and self-contradictory and I was about to propose a new, relatively coherent I hope, one. But now I'm worried that this could be taken as an unfriendly act against the beliefs of the majority in this forum:)...

I'm torn on this one. I too think maybe we have 2 subjects being broached here.. one is the issue of arguing terminology just for the sake of it even when you know what is meant (and any other disrespectful behavior). The other issue is the fact that we don't always have a universal language that means the same thing to all of us, and therefore discussion of what is meant by the terminology could be useful, especially in context of a discussion of a particular thing.

Add to that the fact that these 2 things can get mixed up with no harm intended in cases where an advanced reader might understand what was meant and at the same time fear that a beginner tango student might find it misleading. I know I have sometimes tried to make something written by another poster more precise even though I knew what was meant, because I could tell that I WOULDN"T have interpreted it correctly 6 years ago, and there's a real possibility that someone reading here might have the same problem.

However, I also know that I have sometimes crossed the line with argumentativeness (is that a word?) and I just realized the other day that usually when I'm in an argumentative mood, its because there is someone in real life that I have a beef with that can't be addressed, and I take it out on strangers on the net. Mea Culpa. :( Its not intentional.

So apologies for anything I've done to contribute to friction.

[opendoor]

Tooo friendly would be unpleasant too! Since I am on FB, I wonder which platform I should give the preference: To stew in one´s own juice, or to bear all the dissent and contradictions. I dont know, yet!

[dchester]

I'm torn on this one. I too think maybe we have 2 subjects being broached here.. one is the issue of arguing terminology just for the sake of it even when you know what is meant (and any other disrespectful behavior). The other issue is the fact that we don't always have a universal language that means the same thing to all of us, and therefore discussion of what is meant by the terminology could be useful, especially in context of a discussion of a particular thing.
The first one, is the issue I'm trying to solve. Although the other issue is worthy as well.

[AndaBien]

I think it's valuable to discuss terminology, so we can understand various implications of it. As mentioned already, beginner and experienced dancers may understand a word very differently.

And, I hate to see a term catch on when it really is not accurate. I know we all understand what is meant by shared axis, but my ears flinch every time someone says it because...I'll just let that one go. I think AT is loaded down with words that are vaguely understood.

I don't see that trying to prove correct or incorrect gets us anywhere.

[Subliminal]

I, for example, happen to think that the current mainstream terminology describing the mechanics behind AT is profoundly inadequate and self-contradictory and I was about to propose a new, relatively coherent I hope, one. But now I'm worried that this could be taken as an unfriendly act against the beliefs of the majority in this forum:)...

I'd like to hear your ideas too, go ahead.

[dchester]

I, for example, happen to think that the current mainstream terminology describing the mechanics behind AT is profoundly inadequate and self-contradictory and I was about to propose a new, relatively coherent I hope, one. But now I'm worried that this could be taken as an unfriendly act against the beliefs of the majority in this forum:)...
Just start a separate thread for it. I suspect most of us will be able to understand your objective without getting too upset.

:argue:

[AndaBien]

An axis is a common term used in dance. It's a "thing" that goes from the head, down though the shoulders and hips, and into the floor at a point where the feet/foot is. The head, shoulders and hips are the three main centers of mass in a human body, and generally they should be on the axis. I think this is clear when I think about ice skaters. The axis is not necessarily vertical, unless the person is not going anywhere, that is, only standing or rotating. Again, think of an ice skater going around a curve. The axis slants away from the foot toward the inside of the curve.

So, when I hear "shared axis", I always think it's a poor term to use, because there isn't one. If I were to put my hand against a wall and lean on it, the wall and I would not have a shared axis. Maybe if my partner wrapped her legs around me and I lifted her from the floor we would have a shared axis.

Standing in the kitchen a few minutes ago, I thought of the term "shared-balance". Now, that's a term I could go with.

[Me]

I think some of our Guidelines address part of what dchester is referring to.
I've bolded the parts that I think a pertinent.
(He can correct me if I'm wrong about all of this.)

Another goal here, though is to "encourage a dynamic environment with debates".

Problem is, some people don't know how to have a "dynamic .. debate" while also allowing for the friendly and supportive part, and without getting into the deliberately inflammatory remarks thing.

If you have specific concerns you can use the Private Messages to Staff box, or send a Personal Message to one of the moderators. I see my PMs every time I log on.
Several of you are aware of those options and have used them in the past!


Thank you, Steve! :kissme:

Forgive me for causing any headaches... but I think a lot can be learned from the ballroom forums. Many there discuss "Foxtrot"... bronze, silver, gold... international, american... social, competition, exhibition... the dancers find common ground (generally) when discussing movement, and the dancers know what lines should not be crossed. There is no tiresome quibbling.

Yes, I know, many here will hate me for saying this... I think we should all take a moment to learn from the ballroom dancers.

[Mario7]

FWIW, in my opinion none of these debates was ever a question of 'just semantics'...that there was always real disagreement over how something was thought of or described, etc.
I don't see anything wrong with these debates and actually think that they are healthful for the forum. I'd prefer it to continue this way rather than experience a warm and cozy clique of conformist agreement... wouldn't you?:-?

[Subliminal]

I like this definition, but I'd expand on it; the way I see it, there's a spectrum.

For example, to take 5 points on this spectrum:


Laws: Unbreakable and literally universal. Laws of physics, anatomy and so on. "Ye canna break the laws of physics, Captain" kind of thing.
Rules: Universally-agreed codes of dancing. "Respect your partner", for example. You can break these, but you shouldn't.
Guidelines: "Good practice" instructions. Should be followed unless there's a good reason not to, or unless you're experienced / skillful enough to do it your way.
Interpretations: the way a specific teacher, class or community does things. May be good, may be bad.
Styling: how you dance individually. Up to you.

Basically, these get narrower and narrower; more and more local, ranging from the universal to the individual. And a lot of the confusion and conflict we get is when we tend to extrapolate, and confuse (for example) local interpretations with global rules.

As a model, how does that sound?

I think that's definitely a good way of looking at things.

[Subliminal]

FWIW, in my opinion none of these debates was ever a question of 'just semantics'...that there was always real disagreement over how something was thought of or described, etc.
I don't see anything wrong with these debates and actually think that they are healthful for the forum. I'd prefer it to continue this way rather than experience a warm and cozy clique of conformist agreement... wouldn't you?:-?

No.

When every post deteriorates into "nuevo sucks" or "that's not how they do it in BsAs" or whatever, that's not interesting, that's boring. It's just the same discussion over and over. Agreeing to respect each others' dance style and agreeing on some kind of common reference for discussing the dance isn't conformist or cliquish. In fact, it's the opposite.

[dchester]

FWIW, in my opinion none of these debates was ever a question of 'just semantics'...that there was always real disagreement over how something was thought of or described, etc.
I don't see anything wrong with these debates and actually think that they are healthful for the forum. I'd prefer it to continue this way rather than experience a warm and cozy clique of conformist agreement... wouldn't you?:-?
Ummm... NO

[JohnEm]

We seem to have a recurring "issue" as of late. Threads are getting hijacked in a way that is making the place less friendly, and thus is discouraging people from posting as often. IMO the posts below, more or less sum up the major issue(s) from a couple different perspectives.

As I see it, a few of the newer people don't like (what has been) some of the commonly used terminology around here, and appear to be expecting us to conform to how they say it should be. They also don't seem to understand that some of us aren't going to change how we communicate just because they say it is incorrect. This puts us at a stalemate.

You should read the Breaking the Rules thread again from the start or at least from Page 2 Post 20 by Steve Pastor who actually was the one to initiate the off-topic axis topic. AndaBien joined in agreeing with Steve. Guess who joined in disagreeing and fudging as usual - yes dchester.

You can carry on with your lazy and confusing terminology but there are many more viewers than posters and confusion doesn't help anyone's understanding. The so-called stalemate is clearly of your making and choosing.




Therefore, I am asking that arguments (or prolonged discussions) about disagreement in semantics, terminology, etc., be moved to this thread, thus enabling the other threads to keep the discussion on less inflamatory subjects (like tango).

Well, no actually. Discussion needs to be relevant to the topic in hand and what is being posted. That's the nature of discussion.
I won't conform to such arguments being put in some sort of sanitised bin to be ignored.

As for inflammatory, I seem to recall that someone called dchester was the one that resorted to a rather unwarranted and inappropriate comparison.


This forum has always had a more friendly atmosphere than forums like Tango-L, and speaking for myself, I'd like it to stay that way.

I would say that's as much in your hands


If people have other suggestion for how to restore the atmosphere here to a more fun and friendly place, this is a good place to post those as well.

Listen to other people's arguments (new posters as well old) and think before resorting to the written word. Make sure you understand the whole thread and don't take individual posts out of context. There are other older posters here who can get quite stroppy too.

FWIW, in my opinion none of these debates was ever a question of 'just semantics'...that there was always real disagreement over how something was thought of or described, etc.
I don't see anything wrong with these debates and actually think that they are healthful for the forum. I'd prefer it to continue this way rather than experience a warm and cozy clique of conformist agreement... wouldn't you?:-?

And your reaction to this post (thanks Mario) is illuminating.
It seems that you actually do want a comfortable and cozy clique!

This is a forum about Tango and you want to stifle debate.
You've got no chance. The more that join in, the merrier.

[tangotime]

, I hate to see a term catch on when it really is not accurate. .






Dont EVER get involved in Salsa !! ... :rolleyes:

[spectator]

often when i go out to dance yufcurd, there are indicators who like to discuss the correct technique for mimors. I always find it confusing, as as far as I'm concerned they are actually talking about pawpods. the aspects of pawpods that give them their paw-like qualities have something in common with how a mimor looks, however the basis for this is clearly subjective, and in my mind entirely wrong. On the other hand when we brogle with our koptes it makes a massive difference.

I really hate to see the term mimor abused in such a way!

I have suggested that we have some work shops on bingle, howcho, nupes and their relationship to pawpods but because of the confusion it has been hard to find an appropriate authority to give them.

Of course in searching for the true meaning of yufcurd i have discovered that there are many yufcurd pretenders. They might call themselves more authentic, or even toilet yufcurd dancers. on occaision we have journeyed into the industrial aspect of yufcurd by way of Kraftwerk style yufcurd arrangements. I contend the the only true yufcurd involves gukdoodle. Without gukdoodle it just ain't yufcurd and the feeling between the partners is absent.



This is how it feels often to read some of the threads. Especially to beginners or nontango dancers.

[Zoopsia59]

often when i go out to dance yufcurd, there are indicators who like to discuss the correct technique for mimors. I always find it confusing, as as far as I'm concerned they are actually talking about pawpods. the aspects of pawpods that give them their paw-like qualities have something in common with how a mimor looks, however the basis for this is clearly subjective, and in my mind entirely wrong.

Maybe this is a regional difference, but I think you may have been misinformed (or perhaps your terms come from the balspoof version of yufcurd).

A pawpod is not an actual move. It refers to a person... as in "That guy was a real pawpod!" I suppose ladies could also be pawpods, but I have only heard it in reference to male leaders. I also suppose that a step commonly used by one or several local pawpods could start to be called a pawpod, but that would hardly be a universal use of the term. I've definitely danced with a pawpod, but I can't think of a particular move that I would call the pawpod step.

Does that help with the confusion over pawpods and mimors?
:rolleyes:

[Dave Bailey]

Of course in searching for the true meaning of yufcurd i have discovered that there are many yufcurd pretenders.
Don't forget the neocurders, they're all to blame you know.

[spectator]

ah of course Zoops, I was foregetting that some people are convinced that infact the roots of yufcurd are in nappapaw, and that certain "moves" originated from a provincial folkdance podo. perhaps your pawpods dance in the style of a nappapaw? I am still deeply worried about the integrity of mimors, but perhaps I should make allowances.

Nah screw that! I say the neocurds that grew up from industroyufcurd have appropriated our beautiful mimors and deconstructed them to the point that they are irretrievably tainted.

Damn you, you maniacs!

[Zoopsia59]

ah of course Zoops, I was foregetting that some people are convinced that infact the roots of yufcurd are in nappapaw, and that certain "moves" originated from a provincial folkdance podo. perhaps your pawpods dance in the style of a nappapaw? I am still deeply worried about the integrity of mimors, but perhaps I should make allowances.

Nah screw that! I say the neocurds that grew up from industroyufcurd have appropriated our beautiful mimors and deconstructed them to the point that they are irretrievably tainted.

Damn you, you maniacs!

And of course, the nuefko-mer' people use "pawbots" to mean pawpods when they are referring to an individual person, and use pawpod to mean a family or other social type grouping of them.

[spectator]

those blasted nuefkos. Don't even go there. They think that you have to have counter googkus and they put your left hand in a disturbing position...

[borisvian13]

Spectator, would it hurt your feelings if I suggest that you read some Wittgenstein, particularly his late period?:)

[Peaches]

LOL @ Spec & Zoo.

This has officially become my Favorite.Thread.Ehvarr!

[Ampster]

WHAT???!!! :headwall:

[Zoopsia59]

those blasted nuefkos. Don't even go there. They think that you have to have counter googkus and they put your left hand in a disturbing position...

Wow.. you brits really DO do everything reversed don't you? Over here its always the right hand.

[dchester]

WHAT???!!! :headwall:
Quit acting like a pawpod.

[bordertangoman]

Quit acting like a pawpod.

This is the Dr Seuss thread right. Is it okay to wear thneeds?

[spectator]

to thneed or not to thneed that is the question.

I am reliably informed that in 1946 a nappapawa gentlemn called demi attended a yufcurd event in thneeds (Curdvill Mercury, 1946). The outrage that this caused was similar to that had he worn a pair of doohy without noono (speech by president Fuuur, 1946). My sources, (extensive use of the internet in the British Library, I will send my references later) describe that there was rioting. Afterall, the sight of a nappapaw in thneeds was a clear insult to some third generation pawpodistas.
the violence that ensued lead to the "teepee split", and these days it is frowned on very much in curdville to wear thneeds. However in Europe and the US it is perfectly fine and you should go ahead. I'm told that the yufcurd hardliners in Paris are regularly stopped by police, so you hould be safe.

[Mario7]

to thneed or not to thneed that is the question.
I am reliably informed that in 1946 a nappapawa gentlemn called demi attended a yufcurd event in thneeds.
Is this British-humor (an obvious Oxy-moron)??:( ugh please

[Zoopsia59]

I am reliably informed that in 1946 a nappapawa gentlemn called demi attended a yufcurd event in thneeds (Curdvill Mercury, 1946).

Im sure someone will accuse me of being petty and picky over trite de-tales, but you have been mispeling "yufcurd" for this entire discusion.

TRADITIONALLY, it was spelled youghkurd, altho there were a few nayburhoods of the TRADITIONAL locality that spelled it yophkourd or yeophkord. "Yufcurd" is just a lazie basterdzation for peeple who won't lern to spel.

I know they'rl be sumone who gets there pantys in a bunch over this post. but I hate it when peeple wont' chek they're sppeling; and gramer; an punchasion; befor they post to a intrnet form. How dificult is it to do a litlle reserch?

BTW, Im not trieng to be hostil.. I just nede to make shur u no I no more about this than u do!

[bafonso]

We seem to have a recurring "issue" as of late. Threads are getting hijacked in a way that is making the place less friendly, and thus is discouraging people from posting as often. IMO the posts below, more or less sum up the major issue(s) from a couple different perspectives.

As I see it, a few of the newer people don't like (what has been) some of the commonly used terminology around here, and appear to be expecting us to conform to how they say it should be. They also don't seem to understand that some of us aren't going to change how we communicate just because they say it is incorrect. This puts us at a stalemate.

Therefore, I am asking that arguments (or prolonged discussions) about disagreement in semantics, terminology, etc., be moved to this thread, thus enabling the other threads to keep the discussion on less inflamatory subjects (like tango).

This forum has always had a more friendly atmosphere than forums like Tango-L, and speaking for myself, I'd like it to stay that way.

If people have other suggestion for how to restore the atmosphere here to a more fun and friendly place, this is a good place to post those as well.

Why should I spend my time debating why people can't hold a respectful conversation?

I'm sorry but ignoring some people's posts is bliss. The concepts and opinion differences are not the problem, the way people behave is.

[dchester]

Why should I spend my time debating why people can't hold a respectful conversation?

I'm sorry but ignoring some people's posts is bliss. The concepts and opinion differences are not the problem, the way people behave is.
Yes, I actually came to that conclusion a few days ago and used the ignore list feature.

[Subliminal]

Yes, I actually came to that conclusion a few days ago and used the ignore list feature.

Huh. It's too bad it's come to that. But maybe that's not such a bad idea. I was just thinking about abandoning the forum.

[spectator]

Z:
ok you win, I laughed so hard people stared at me, I can't match it! Brilliant!

Mario:
I think this is a classic example of "I don't understand it, therefore it must be bad/wrong" which entirely, entirely illustrates the point that was being made.

[Zoopsia59]

Z:
ok you win, I laughed so hard people stared at me, I can't match it! Brilliant!


SCORE!! I WIN!!

:banana:

Seriously, spec, this has been the most fun I've had on this forum in awhile! Thanks and I look forward to your "real" posts on other threads. I always wished to see you post more. There are a few posters whose remarks are infrequent, but always insightful, and you are one of them.

With genuine respect,
zoops :D

[Mario7]

Mario:
I think this is a classic example of "I don't understand it, therefore it must be bad/wrong".

'Bad' yes, 'Evil' no...not yet anyway.:(

[spectator]

evil?
I give up.

<------------- Look what I've become