WCS - a newbie's perspective

[mikeyr]

And Mikey, you learned at Twickenham to begin with, didn't you? Did you often get refused dances there?

Been to Twickenham once! No didnt get refused, very rarely do. As I remember I went around the room and asked those Ladies I saw in the beginners class to dance first......!

Whichever way you wanna try to spin it to the contrary this dance has an attitude problem! No newbies = no growth = eventually no dance!

For me that means I'd have to get a proper job :-(

[nomoves]

I stand corrected on you and Twickenham Mike. And I agree with you that newbies are good and the world would probably be a better place with more dance teachers and fewer City workers.

I went to a Jive Addiction weekender in Southport with a couple of female friends from down south a few years back before I knew West Coast existed.

My friends moaned over dinner on Saturday that they had had a disappointing Friday night because they didn't know anyone, they hadn't been asked to dance in the blues room and that anyway everyone there looked too scarily good to approach. (They were talking about jivers not westies).

So we agreed we were all going to ask at least 10 people we didn't know to dance that night - and from what I remember we all found some fun new partners and had a much better time.

If West Coast has a problem a lot of it is to do with how Westies are perceived rather than how the vast majority are. Telling people "thar be dragons" on West Coast floors only makes the problem worse.

I'd tell any newbies that there are lots of nice people on West Coast floors (even at Twickenham ... even on a Wednesday night) and you'll have a lot more fun dancing with them than watching them - even if it means you're the ones doing the asking.

[Gerry]

[QUOTE=mikeyr;578218] No newbies = no growth = eventually no dance!
QUOTE]

[rtwwpad]

Not you Linda, I would have referred to you as Northants Girly as I know you didn't like it when someone used your real name before. It was a Scottish lady.

Just to clarify (for those who missed it) a refusal is not when someone says no with an excuse. Its when they just say no and dismiss you with no excuse. I'm sorry robd but to me there's nowhere in the dance community that is acceptable.

I am enjoying the journey but I am realising why WCS attracts the comments it does, although I enjoy the dance. Also I dance on Mondays at Twickers, so don't know the Wed night faces.

[robd]

I'm sorry robd but to me there's nowhere in the dance community that is acceptable.

No need to apologise (other than for implying I have said something that I have not) I have not said that such behaviour is acceptable and, thankfully, I believe it is pretty rare in both MJ and WCS (it hasn't ever happened to me and I suspect I'm far from alone in that) which is why I suggest you might want to consider why your experience differed so significantly from that of the norm.

[One]

Reply to whoever sent me the anonymous rep message:

I am weary of hearsay & gossip, but if you would like to elaborate further, please do, as what you have said is has no substance really.

I take people as I find them.

I have found robd to be slighty more hostile and sarcastic then was needed (in reply to a wcs newbie sharing his experiences, rtwwpad), and then to drag up a little coment that mikeyr made TWO YEARS ago to be a little pathetic tbh. Dragging up petty things from the long & distant past in order to create an unnecessary arguement was the sort of thing my manipulative bi*ch of an ex g/f used to do

Not at all. I have been on the forum for a few years now and have a pretty good memory for what people have written in the past

Do you remember asking for help with your mobile phone insurance? I notice you're too arrogant/rude to acknowledge the help & time people have given you.

especially when it causes a bit of a stir

Slight exageration. Just sparked a little debate, and some of the replies (PaulF for eg) were quite interesting. Also, notice the lack of sarcasm and arrogance in PaulF's posts? You should take note.

as mikeyr's comment did when it was originally posted and even more so when people perform a complete about turn in their publicly stated position )

Okay, so you've never changed your mind about anything, you're just too damn perfect aren't you robd :LOL:

blah blah.....and it only took a single search (even using the DREADFUL vbulletin search function) to find.

rtwwpad, this is your area of expertise, I am right in thinking that when someone gives you an unnessaryly long excuse, it's usually a sign that they're lying?

[robd]

whoever sent me the anonymous rep message:

It was not me. If you pay up for Silver membership then you can see who has given you rep.

I take people as I find them.

As do I.

I have found robd to be slighty more hostile and sarcastic then was needed (in reply to a wcs newbie sharing his experiences, rtwwpad),

Your opinion and you're welcome to it - that's the point of a forum. The tone of my responses to rtwwpad reflect the tone that I perceive in his posts. If you give it then be ready to take it - too many posters on here are quite happy to slate others but not so keen when the heat is turned on themselves.

and then to drag up a little coment that mikeyr made TWO YEARS ago to be a little pathetic tbh. Dragging up petty things from the long & distant past in order to create an unnecessary arguement was the sort of thing my manipulative bi*ch of an ex g/f used to do

It wasn't done in order to 'create an unnecessary arguement (sic)' As I said I thought Mike was taking the p1ss by slating other people on the scene given some of his words and actions in the past. I have no issue with Mike and as I said in my response when he posted that originally he does walk the walk in terms of developing the scene here (of course he does also have a financial incentive to do so but then so do others) but that doesn't mean the sun shines out of his backside and that he can't be pulled up for things he has said in the past.

Do you remember asking for help with your mobile phone insurance?

Yes

I notice you're too arrogant/rude to acknowledge the help & time people have given you.

Are you for real? How do you know I haven't sent handwritten thank you cards to each and every respondent?

Also, notice the lack of sarcasm and arrogance in PaulF's posts? You should take note.

That would be the same lack of sarcasm and arrogance as you'll find in my response to Mike's original post then?

Okay, so you've never changed your mind about anything

Well, I used to think some of your posts were interesting and balanced.

rtwwpad, this is your area of expertise, I am right in thinking that when someone gives you an unnessaryly long excuse, it's usually a sign that they're lying?

If you are happy believing that I am lying then so be it. Actually I suppose there was a precedent for that when I wrote 'I used to think some of your posts were interesting and balanced.'

[Andy McGregor]

You sound a lot like Andy McGregor with that statement and appear about as convincing.

Which particular "axe" is unconvincing?

Is it the one where I've said new students are reporting they found some beginners WCS lessons too hard for beginners? Or the one where I said students told me they found some WCS classes unfriendly?

I'm simply reporting what I've been told. I didn't know I needed to appear "convincing". If I didn't know better I'd think robd was accusing me of lying about what I'd been told.

Come on robd, get it out in the open. Do you think I'm lying about what I've been told?

[robd]

Come on robd, get it out in the open. Do you think I'm lying about what I've been told?

No, I do not.

[Andy McGregor]

No, I do not.

Phew!

So we've agreed I'm not lying, just being "unconvincing" in telling the truth. I'm afraid 'unconvincing' is out of my hands. People have disagreed with my truths in a convincing way. They have made up a story about a hidden agenda they say I have in communicating what I've heard. They have also said that what I've been told is not true, of possibly that I've made up the whole thing. Those are the lies in the transaction and neither have come from me. When you're up against professional liars it's often difficult to sound convincing. Practiced liars know they have to sound convincing and put a lot of time and effort into their art form. When you have the truth on your side it's often difficult to remember to be "convincing", especially when you know that's the path of expert liars

[robd]

So we've agreed I'm not lying, just being "unconvincing" in telling the truth.

I've never doubted the truthfulness of what you have written in this and other similar threads, just your motivations in doing so.

[One]

The tone of my responses to rtwwpad reflect the tone that I perceive in his posts.

Fair enough, I can see your point of view there. I, personally, didn't percieve his posts quite the same way. Four refusals in one night must have been tough going, so I can understand his tone being slightly, 'passionate'. Ok he had a bit of a rant, we all do that at times to get things off our chest.

I felt that he had suffered a bad enough night on Friday without anyone having a go at him on here.

It wasn't done in order to 'create an unnecessary arguement (sic)' As I said I thought Mike was taking the p1ss by slating other people on the scene given some of his words and actions in the past. I have no issue with Mike and as I said in my response when he posted that originally he does walk the walk in terms of developing the scene here (of course he does also have a financial incentive to do so but then so do others) but that doesn't mean the sun shines out of his backside and that he can't be pulled up for things he has said in the past.

It just seemed petty.

Are you for real?

I'm from the old-school Gerry's status camp of manners cost nothing.

Well, I used to think some of your posts were interesting and balanced.

I think many of your posts are interesting and balanced. And I still do.

However, I have also found quite a few of other posts of yours to be very padantic, nick-pickerty, overly blunt and with an air of arrogance.

[Andy McGregor]

I've never doubted the truthfulness of what you have written in this and other similar threads, just your motivations in doing so.

I know what my motivations are and clearly stated my reasons for posting. It is your right as a reader to doubt or question my motivation - that is healthy debate. What concerns me is your reasons to doubt my motivation: those reasons come from the posting of lies about me.

Some other people have made up different motivations which are untrue - that is fabrication and lying. That is unhealthy debate.

I could, in turn, fabricate the motivations of people who have lied about me. That would make me no better than them. I can speculate about their motivation: I guess they wish to discredit me and thereby make it seem like I'm an habitual liar. Why would they want to do this? I've told the truth about them in the past and they don't like the truth.

[Rocky]

..However, I have also found quite a few of other posts of yours to be very padantic, nick-pickerty, overly blunt and with an air of arrogance.

Yeah, I agree...

People think I'm the forum bully, but Rob's the real devil incarnate, just look at his profile pic... more teeth than Esther Rantzen..

[Andy McGregor]

Yeah, I agree...

People think I'm the forum bully,..

People used to think that. But nowadays Rocky is a relative softie. Some people might even guess he's taking female hormones ...




.. I've not seen him in the flesh for a while, is there any evidence of moobs?

[straycat]

Phew!

So we've agreed I'm not lying, just being "unconvincing" in telling the truth. I'm afraid 'unconvincing' is out of my hands.

Actually - I'd disagree on that point - I think it's very much in your hands.

In this particular case, for me, it's not so much what you say, nor even how you say it - it's just the sheer amount of repetition which can come across as as though you have a bit of a bee in your bonnet on the subject.

[Andy McGregor]

Actually - I'd disagree on that point - I think it's very much in your hands.

In this particular case, for me, it's not so much what you say, nor even how you say it - it's just the sheer amount of repetition which can come across as as though you have a bit of a bee in your bonnet on the subject.

Again, that's due to the repeated assertion that I've got a different agenda from what I've said or the assertion that I'm lying. It's difficult to leave leave a lie to stand unopposed especially when twinned with personal insults.

I have two options. Repeat the truth or expose the other party or parties as habitual liars with their own agenda. The rules of the forum mean that the second option is not available.

The rules of the forum are currently skewed in favour of liars - not that I'm moaning, just saying it like it is. Make something up about someone's motivation and it stands for all to see - even if it is a complete fabrication. Tell an unpalatable truth about someone who is insulting you in a dishonest manner, your post gets deleted and you get your knuckles rapped.

[alinp]

.. I've not seen him in the flesh for a while, is there any evidence of moobs?

Personally, I don't get that close - but I know someone who does. Would it be inappropriate to ask her to check?

[David Bailey]

Which particular "axe" is unconvincing?

This one.

Mjolnir's a hammer, OK?

What? Everyone else is talking rubbish.

Also:

Phew!

So we've agreed I'm not lying, just being "unconvincing" in telling the truth. I'm afraid 'unconvincing' is out of my hands. People have disagreed with my truths in a convincing way. They have made up a story about a hidden agenda they say I have in communicating what I've heard. They have also said that what I've been told is not true, of possibly that I've made up the whole thing. Those are the lies in the transaction and neither have come from me. When you're up against professional liars it's often difficult to sound convincing. Practiced liars know they have to sound convincing and put a lot of time and effort into their art form. When you have the truth on your side it's often difficult to remember to be "convincing", especially when you know that's the path of expert liars

You lost me somewhere around the fifth "lie"...

[David Bailey]

As for the, you know, topic...

Four rejections in a night sounds quite terrifying. Even one rejection can make your evening bad.

I also don't think it's reasonable to automatically assume that these serial rejections are automatically the fault of the person asking. When you read things like:

but to just look me up and down and say no,

And then read robd's dismisive-sounding response:

I'm sure no-one's ever had an experience like this at a modern jive weekender.....

Well, that's seems a little bit unsympathetic. And that's me saying this. rtwwpad claerly had a nasty experience and he shows guts to have stuck it out - I know if I'd got 4 experiences like that in a night at a MJ weekend, I'd have left that event.

However, that's also the point. It wasn't an MJ weekender.

I went to a salsa weekender about 10 years ago. I got refusals there. And I was good at salsa back then. I didn't expect salsa to operate by the same rules as MJ.

And there are plenty of AT followers who've sat entire nights, not being asked to dance a single time. There are plenty of AT leaders who've been refused point-blank with no explanations given. Hell, I was "thank-you'd" myself a couple of weeks ago after 2 dances. Refusals happen.

If a newbie goes from MJ to WCS and experiences this sort of cultural issue - and that does seem to happen, at least on occasions - then perhaps it's useful to explore how best a newbie can manage their expectations, to make this transition less painful.

That's certainly one of the things I tried to do for MJers learning AT, on my jivetango site. So maybe a "JiveSwing" site would be helpful?