[Tango-L] how to lead (was 'weight change')

[Alexis Cousein]

Crrtango at aol.com wrote:
>  On Tue Apr 29  2:23 , Alexis Cousein  sent:
> 
>> If (or I should say when) the frame is really locked, it is impossible
>> for you to do a weight change and for your partner to do none;
> 
> Although we don't agree on everything ;-), I agree with Keith on this one.   
> It is not impossible at all to change weight 
[and to prevent the partner to do so] while in a close embrace

Yes. And as I tried to say several times, that's why I don't consider the
frame to be locked, exactly for the reason you gave ("locked" implies a
restriction). There are moments in which (in close and open embrace)
the frame if locked, and there are other moments (again, in close and in open
embrace) in which the frame isn't. If you change weight and your partner
doesn't, then I don't consider the frame locked.

Of course, other people are free to use terms in a different way.

I *said* that I acknowledged the fact that I was in violent agreement
with the gist of most comments but didn't define a frame to be locked in the
same way, and now I'm continually dragged back into the fray by
people who insist on reading my words using a definition that I have
*SAID* isn't mine.

Close embrace != locked in my dictionary (I prefer the term "joined").
If it is in yours, then there's no need to read *my* statements through
your glasses and disagree, because I'd disagree with them too, when read
in this way.

-- 
Alexis Cousein                                  al at sgi.com
Senior Systems Engineer/Solutions Architect     SGI/Silicon Graphics
--
<If I have seen further, it is by standing on reference manuals>