[Tango-L] Pudding for breakfast

[Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)]

Dearest Puddinheads,

Jay Rabe wrote:
> Fan, [...] thank you very much for the first truly productive and creative suggestion on the list in a long time
Since when did inciting people to watch TV become either "productive" or 
"creative"?
> Pictures/videos, worth infinitely more than words alone.
What about words with sense?

I hate to burst y'all's bubble here, but that threadbare "picture = 
1,000 words" bit only comes true for visual descriptions. I'm afraid it 
especially doesn't apply to the kinesthesia of dance.
> YouTube is a perfect, creative solution.
For marketing: sure. For the pure fun of documenting & sharing 
performances and shorts: bring it on. For learning-- give me a goddamn 
break.

That's the kind of argument I would've put forward, insincerely, when I 
was twelve.

Chris, UK wrote:
> Anyone who thinks ochos against a wall is "dancing" has spent way too 
> much money on technique workshops.
Come now: That's unfair to those of us who teach technique. For $10, 
I'll tell you to practice ochos without even a refrigerator.

Clif Davis wrote:
> I am curious, is there anything that posted here that won't start a
> bickering conflict?
>   
You call this bickering? :-)
> I enjoy the technical parts of all conversations but being so critical all the time is both petty and boring.
Clif, this is an online forum. It is supposed to be petty and boring.

Besides, being all magnanimous & exciting in blind emails gets caught by 
spam filters. Just think of all those Nigerian bankers with US funds who 
can't get through to you.

Fantasia Sorenson wrote:
> By "call it" I wasn't referring to my evaluation of the videos, I was
> referring to the immediate appearance of a post that nitpicked the spelling of a tango term [...]
(No irony here, folks...)
> rather than contributing anything that could actually help me with my dancing.
I do believe Chris indicated what sync(h)opation isn't; and also sent 
you a link to something he considers a fine model; and also argued that 
a solo video demonstrating something belonging to a partner dance is a 
little odd. If none of that is of any help to you whatsoever, I wonder 
what would be.
> [...] in the absence of an illustration, I just don't understand what's going on.
>   
Most people don't _understand_ anything in the presence of one either, 
mind you.
> You with the ankles and you with the knees and you with the beat and you with the half-beat and all the others with this, that, and the other heel walk and toe walk...
>
> Let's see it!
>   
What is this, the fucking Girl Scouts?
> If it's worth knowing, then it has to be worth seeing.
I've got it. Why don't you get a partner, dance in front of Your damn 
camera, send the shit to me, and I'll give you some commentary directly. 
Once-- just to illustrate the difference between looking with your eyes 
and looking with your mind.
> The proof is in the pudding.
>   
But the deal's off if you deploy one more blasted cliche.

Tom Stermitz wrote:
> Dulce de Leche is pretty easy to make starting with a can of  
> sweetened condensed milk. You boil it for two or three hours
>   
Um, no. You _simmer_ the liquid, preferably in a _double boiler_ if 
you're using sweetened condensed milk. If you're going to boil it the 
whole time, you should keep it in the can, punch a hole in the lid, and 
make sure (a) the top isn't covered by water, and (b) the thing don't 
explode. But good luck with That.
> I have a feeling that responding to Chris's posts with recipes may  
> allow us to create a culinary cookbook.
>   
At this rate you might get a cookbook, but I'm not sure it'll be 
culinary. :-)

Jake Spatz
DC