Viewing all threads involving Cedric Lackpot
Linky no worky :(
I tried to work out what it was supposed to be but YouTube keeps giving me "no such video"
That's much better.
I much prefer Keaton (and Harold Lloyd) to Chaplin. Much more my sort of humour.
What he said. I watched another one on that group and discovered why most comedy films made recently are boring.
I have the same. I recently started watching/studying both Keaton and Chaplin films, and the Keaton ones speak much more to me!
I've got an excellent documentary on Keaton in three episodes of 50 mins each.
I've uploaded the first one here:
I'll upload eps 2 & 3 in a couple of days if anyone wants them.
[It's already on YT in a couple of forms, but none are good to view - unless you happen to like chipmunk speech or loudly dubbed Russian]
Nice article in the NY Times about Ringling Brothers Circus: Running Away With the Circus
I wasn't aware that the light bulb was once a side show on its own.
they don’t have their new light bulb yet
I find this quote ironic, because a new generation of light bulb has just come on the market: http://woodgears.ca/misc/led.html. For juggling, I prefer LEDs to other types of bulbs.
I juggle in an almost windowless full court gym that has motion activated LED lighting. Running into the dangerously dark gym activates all the lights at the same time, which reach full brightness instantly. This would be the most shocking technology of the modern world to someone from antiquity.
Ringling train for Orin. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10206297158362682
I was very disappointed though that there weren't 2 clowns pumping along behind it on one of those cars with the see-saw like lever on top.
> I was very disappointed though that there weren't 2 clowns pumping along behind it on one of those cars with the see-saw like lever on top.
That would be a railroad handcar. I'm pretty sure they appeared in one or more of Keaton's films, The General being the obvious candidate. But not only that, Keaton's final film appearance in The Railrodder features him riding a motorised handcar across Canada and was promoted by the National Film Board of Canada.
A most satisfactory circle of relationships there!
There is a neighborhood in Minneapolis called Dinkytown, named after those handcars which were called Dinkies. It was once mainly a railroad yeard but now is mostly university student housing and appropriate small businesses.
Ok, since we've got Ringling Bros on the table, I'm going to chuck in a (potentially controversial) opinion just to see what comes back...
I thoroughly dislike the whole notion of a 3-ring circus. For me it places far too much emphasis on hype (aka bullshit) and spectacle, and devalues the artists by dispersing focus.
[Aside: I read an article/review some time ago on the first Cirque du Soleil show in the U.S. The 'journalist' stated that CDS had invented a new form of circus - the single ring...]
I also hold RBB&B largely responsible for the epidemic of sub-standard 'clowns' who think that putting on a rainbow wig and oversized pyjamas makes you 'funny'. Because of the distance between the audience and the performers RBB&B clowns are all exaggeration and very little else. No subtlety, no depth of character, no humanity - to me the 3 key elements of a clown.
Full disclosure: I have never actually been to a 3-ring circus. My experience of them only comes from videos and films. RBB&B videos are egregious examples of what I list above - all hype and spectacle, the acts shown only in short clips, usually intercut with each other (the 'three-ring experience', I guess), and lots of footage of unfunny exaggerated 'long-distance' clowning.
Okay, there's my opinion, loudly voiced. Your turn - hit me with your best shot!
> [Aside: I read an article/review some time ago on the first Cirque du Soleil show in the U.S. The 'journalist' stated that CDS had invented a new form of circus - the single ring...]
Uhh, yeah, riiiiight ...
Yo! Cirque du Soleil! We have the ghost of someone calling himself Philip Astley on line 1, he says he like a word ...
PS I've never been to or even seen a 3-ring circus, but I always wondered how come they weren't horribly unfocussed. TIL that perhaps they're just horribly unfocussed.
I get so confused when I talk to American non-circus people.. They have such a strange idea of circus!!!
Here in Europe if I say "circus" they say "ooohh, like trapeze & stuff?"
Talking to US people they say "oohhh like bearded lady & clown cars?"
I've just come to accept it as "different". I'd love to see a 3 ring circus one day, but I doubt I'd understand it much.
To understand some more of this circus I tried to watch some movies, for example "the three ring circus" (good name, right?)
And as it happens to be on youtube also, why not give you a link?
Also, Circus World is cool too (but not on youtube)
Circus World is a great movie.
"Trapeze" is another excellent circus movie (single ring) - Burt Lancaster, Tony Curtis, Gina Lollobrigida. Trivia: Burt Lancaster was a horizontal-bar acrobat before he took up acting.
I too have never seen a 3 ring circus so I have no idea what I'm talking about, but that's never stopped me before&helip;
I think the 3 ring experience was the result of trying to keep up with an ever increasing audience size. In 1936 their big top had a seating capacity of 10,000, at a time when you didn't have big screens relaying the action. You can't do anything small or subtle to an audience of 10,000 people. That's why they had so many elephants. I can't imagine they fielded many budgie acts.
I can imagine that I would get extremely frustrated at a three ring show unless they cycled the acts through all 3 rings (which I don't think they did) because I would want to watch everything. I also can't imagine any of the acts being that good because of the reasons you state plus they must be pretty dull if they are all choreographed to the same music.
"Keep up with an ever increasing audience size" my guess would have been that it was the other way around - how do we make more money? By getting bigger audiences... and so forth. Obviously the demand must have been there, but the usual way to deal with increasing demand is longer seasons. The jump from one ring to three would have been an enormous risk financially - I wonder if the idea was also shaped by arena-style shows like the Wild West spectacles.
Now you've gone and got me interested, I might have to do some reading on it.
They don't cycle through the acts. You're wrong about the quality, though. Many of the acts are absolutely top-notch, especially the ones that play centre ring. Juggling examples (centre ring): Francis Brunn; Dieter Tasso, when he was doing his act on slackwire (pre-comedy).
I don't know how they work the music, but there's also the 'build-up' factor to consider - ie. when the big trick is approaching. As I understand it, a trick has to be pretty special for the other rings to stop.
I have been to three ring circuses, both as a child and as an adult juggler. About twenty years ago our local juggling club went to rb&bb as a group, one of our presidents knew one of the clowns. You are right to say they are confusing and mostly boring for adults, unless they bring children with them and get vicarious enjoyment from them.
rb&bb recently announced the retirement of their elephants, too much trouble for today's downtown convention center venues.
Here's another breathtaking slackline walk. This time by Théo Sanson between The Rectory & Castleton Tower in Castle Valley, Utah.
Drones are doing a lot of good for the world of amateur film.
Ever since I watched the amazing movie "The Walk", I've been very interested in tightrope walking...I wouldn't want to do it without a harness and a safety rope though...
Philippe Petit was a madman.....
I suspect Philippe Petit is still a madman - he seems to have something of a reputation for being a bit difficult and driven. My mate played him in the stage play To Reach The Clouds, which was then translated to the screen in Man On Wire, and said that he was ... a bit direct, shall we say?
Before his iconic Twin Towers walk he had already performed guerrilla wire walks between the towers of Notre Dame and across the towers of Sydney Harbour Bridge. That's taking street theatre above and beyond in my opinion. A very interesting and singular character.
AFAIK most of these lofty slack line walks are performed with a tether, but if it were me I'd still royally shit myself.
So it's been 12 days since Ethan has posted. I'm curious to know weather he was blocked by that many people or has he left the site as a result of being censored. Whilst not condoning his attack on Luke I would hate to think I would be blocked from posting if I said something to upset the God Emperor. I would prefer to see a more democratic approach to the running of the site whereby a vote could be taken before such a draconian measure as excluding a member is taken. I feel Ethan would have benefited from an open discussion of his behaviour rather than a somewhat petulant exclusion.
Here's hoping my post gets past the censors.
I didn't block Ethan for attacking me. I blocked him because he was flooding the forum, and I needed rest. He did this after we tried to have an open discussion about his behavior.
After re-reading the thread in question a couple of times it seems to me that the discussion of his behaviour started after Orin temporarily barred Ethan from posting.This meant he was not afforded the opportunity to either appologise for his behaviour or try to explain it. I can fully understand anyone wishing to block his posts as they are often childish or intentionally provocative however I would have preferred to make up my own mind about reading them or not. In fact having an option to block any poster I feel is not contributing to the site makes excluding anyone unnecessary as I can make an adult decision myself and not need to rely on an arbitary decision made on my behalf.
Margaret Thatcher talked about denying the IRA the "oxygen of publicity" but it was not until John Major sat down with all parties that the good Friday accord was signed putting an end to the violence caused by excluding republicans and loyalists alike from discussing the future of Northern Ireland. "Better jaw jaw than war war" as Arabella's grand father once said.
As you can probably tell I feel the principles of free speech go much further than some immature comments made by a young lad on an unimportant juggling forum.
I'm totally with you on the free speech thing. However, in this case, Ethan's flooding of the forum was getting in the way of other people wanting to speak freely. When one person's actions end up silencing or driving other people away, how is that person not also restricting free speech?
You have the option to block any user so you can (and did) stop him flooding your forum.If I choose to allow him to flood my uncensored view of the forum that should be my decision not the God Emperors.
Well, I disagree on this. If I had come to this forum for the first time, and seen Ethan's posts before anything else, I would simply have never read anything on the forum, nor would I have created an account, nor would I have started posting, nor would I have then decided to block him.
This happens to me very often! If my first contact with a website, forum, facebook group, or any other kind of online community is even remotely non-positive, let alone negative, I simply never return.
This reminds me a bit of rec.juggling and viewing it through IJDB - there was a lot of spam. Someone made a really quite decent spam filter, you installed it and forgot there was any spam. Which was great for any existing users, but it did mean that any new users got a poor first viewing of rec.juggling, and might have been put off by all the spam.
Of course, periodically a newish user would suggest sorting out the spam problem, and all the old users would say they used this script, and all the users who had spent months wading through the spam since the last time that the filter was mentioned could install it.
The point being, in general (not commenting on this specific case) you want problems to be sorted by default - obviously some things have to be left to user preference, but there is a big downside to saying, yes this is a problem but users can fix it like this.
This is EXACTLY why I haven't been keeping up with this forum as much as I should this past week or so. When I saw all the Ethan drama, I felt like I had wasted a bunch of time reading things that have nothing to do with juggling. Looking again today I am pleased with all the new posts.
He seemed young and not very self aware.. a bit annoying maybe, not sure he was silencing or driving anyone away though. I don't like any kind of blocking, rec.juggling was just fine for all that time without it.. if I'm not mistaken?
You are not mistaken ... mostly. Many USENET feeds had pretty good spam filtering, meaning that penis enlargement potions rarely hit the radar, but other than that it was what is laughingly referred to as unmoderated, by which people mean that someone else is there to protect their delicate sensibilities and prejudices, like a magic outrage fairy bestowing pixie dust of decorousness on the unseemly.
r.j was great because it was in fact user-moderated, like most things in life: Don't like something/somebody/whatever? Ignore it and move on. It was really liberating, and the small price to pay was that you would often need to - gasp! - ignore the rest of a thread that didn't interest you. The benefit was conversation that could not be stifled, or indeed be edited post hoc.
Consequently we had loads of posters just like Ethan - paging Sondre! - who flooded the board with piffle and either got bored, or learned better ways to engage with the conversation if they were so inclined. The unimaginative trolls tended to tire of the effort, or even entertained us with an amusing flounce, whereas the misguided but well-intentioned contributors modified their behaviour because they did in fact want to engage and realised that they were putting people off. The key difference is that lots of people blowing you off is way more persuasive than a single moderator doing the same, even if they have broad support.
I'll admit I was baffled and disappointed by Ethan's banning from a forum well equipped to allow its users to self-moderate, and equally by Luke's and others' inability to move on, just like they did in the r.j days. But I also admit that I have some pretty clear ideas about how people should get the best out of a forum like this, and that not everyone shares my outlook. Ethan struck me as a small kid in a big kid's playground, who couldn't quite get to grips with the prevailing culture here, and I remain mystified why he wasn't just allowed to find his niche or fade away.
For the sake of nostalgia: Chris Chiappini, Dr. Jerry/Lion Juggler, Soular Influx, Dick Franco, Anthony Gatto ffs!, Chris wossname, Jason Garfield post-Sean McKinney, and hundreds of others besides dipped their toes in the r.j water and failed to make the connection. Who on earth would wish that their efforts had never seen the light of day? Share your memories of r.j car crashes Edgizens!
I think Pumpkineater was specifically asking about ignoring users. Most usenet clients had a 'bit bucket' where you could set up email addresses that you wanted to ignore. There were many messages which had a single line of *plonk* which was the sound of someone hitting the bottom of said bucket.
I used to enjoy poking the trolls back in the early days, but I never saw the people that it turned away. Now I do. It definitely feels a lot different when it is my hard work that is negatively impacted. Sorry Colin.
My favourite rec.juggling car crash by far was Zuko. Yay for HQJD's!
>> If you guys want to tell me where I can find paraffin in the Dallas
>> area, I'll try some.
>Oh, please don't, Stephen. If you continue to use gasoline on your fire
>torches, there's a good chance that the world will soon be a better
Andrew, I used to have a fair amount of respect for you. The
fact that you are too stupid to realize that I've used it safely in
the past and can use it safely in the future hurts that. The fact
that you actively *want* me to kill myself, and feel it would be
an improvement, tells me more about you. Fuck off.
I'm out of here for awhile. Fuckhead thinks that he can call me
names, tell lies, etc. You're just making it worse, and it appears
intentional. It's clear that you guys are just assholes, and that
I'm not going to stop you from being assholes. It's clear that no
matter what I say, you plan to abuse me.
So fuck off. I'm out of here. I may be back, or I may not. I'm
sure you would rather have Nigel trolling and trying to start trouble
than real conversation anyway.
Believe it or not I am doing what I think is right to protect him. I have more information than you. I mean this to be a simple statement of fact, I don't mean to be condescending.
I understand that I'm not saying much but I wanted to say that I acknowledge that you disapprove of my decision, it's certainly not something I'm pleased with & I appreciate you mean well.
I don't know anywhere near as much as Orin, but I do know the decision wasn't a knee-jerk response, it wasn't the first resort, and that it wasn't a decision that was taken lightly at all.
Im as much for free speech as anyone, but at the same time if a kid is repeatedly bashing you in the shins with their new toy fire engine, there's nothing wrong with taking it off them and sending them to sit on the naughty step for a bit until they calm down.
Ethan's posts have not been vetted, censored of redacted at all - Orin just took his fire engine away for a bit.
Also, yes. At least this many people have him on ignore.
I thought this was a 'mischievous community of jugglers'. If it's not just childish trolling and there's something more sinister to it then let us know! Why the secretiveness? Also.. the vagueness as to how many people blocked him? I find it hard to believe that more than twelve people did. Most of us make mistakes, I know I do, Luke Burrage does and Little Paul does too (with his serial blocking). I was interested to see how the Ethan thing panned out.
Reading back at my comment - I hope that doesn't sound like I'm complaining or anything like that. The Edge is awesome and Orinoco does an amazing job on it. Perhaps it's just that this is actually none of my business. Sorry I'll just keep out of it.
I blocked Ethan, on the day he was flooding the forum with barbs at Luke, because he was being so in-your-face irritating to the whole community. Then I unblocked him because I found that I couldn't read the discussion about blocking him as he'd started it (or at any rate some other ongoing thread). Don't know if my brief block counted there or not, or whether I'll re-block once he's back. Hopefully he will reflect and become the positive humorous contributor Void said he could become.
Chris you can not know weather a person is "irritating to the whole community" you found him to be irritating so you blocked him. Others could have found him funny so should be allowed to decide for themselves.
I understand that Orin was trying to protect him from making a fool of himself however making a twat of yourself may lead to self enlightment and be a good way of curbing future behaviour. I know I have certainly learned from my mistakes and the disapproval of others over things I have done or said in the past.
Fair enough Monte, that is my personal interpretation, not something I can know for sure.
I'm sorry Paul but if someone is not allowed to speak that is censorship.
Whilst you might find it intolerable to have your shins bashed others may be more tolerant than you. You could argue that taking a child's toy away will stiffle his independence and his individuality and lead to him being resentful and full of spite. Far better that you remove yourself from his vicinity and let other more tolerant people explain to him why bashing your shins was unacceptable behaviour and suggest a more productive way to play with his fire engine.
Feelings of exclusion and marginalisation has led to many followers of Islam becoming radicalised and left them feeling justified for their acts of atrocity. You may have turned Ethan into a suicide poster.
Ok Void I do realise there have to be some limits to freedom of speech on the net or otherwise. No-one should have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre or preach violence against vulnerable minorities or commit acts of cyber bullying but that is not what we are talking about here. Ethan just reacted in an immature and witless way to a slightly provocative comment by Luke about "finding the block feature" In my opinion banning Ethan from posting is an over reaction to a minor infringement of the rules of polite society and no more. Freedom of speech has it's downside for sure but the alternative ie censorship and oppression is worse. I just feel the situation could have been managed better and that it would be a shame if a young juggler leaves the community out of either anger or shame and now feels too bitter or too embarrassed to return.
Again, I'd rather one annoying young juggler leave if that means many other young jugglers would join or stay. He was only blocked for a few days, so he can always come back when he's decided to be less annoying.
I am with Luke here. There are plenty of communities that I have not joined because of the maturity of its users.
If seems unlikely to me that anyone would leave the site because one poster out of hundreds makes an occasional annoying post. Also we have no information about how long he will be blocked for. And who is going to decide if he is being less annoying and therefore be allowed back. Hopefully not you as you have already admitted that you scroll past most peoples posts as they are not worth reading unless someone else has replied first. A little more tolerance of others would be a good thing in my opinion.
There aa big and relevant difference between 1 post in 100 and 1 poster in 100.
Aaaand usual proof that my tablet's autocorrect makes my posts worse more often than better..
Sorry Brook I'm not quite sure what point you are making. Either way most of the posts on this site will not drive users away. Are you suggesting that all of Ethan's posts are annoying enough to make people leave the site?
Yes. That is it exactly.
If I look at a new forum, and see any text by any member that was/is as bad as Ethan's or 7b_wizards, I would immediately close the browser tab and not bother checking again.
Seriously. I have done this many, many times.
Yet you are still here despite being more annoyed than most, thus proving my point no-one leaves they just ignore.
I believe both of them have also posted serious points concerning juggling or performing which no-one could fairly consider to be annoying so it is untrue to say either posts 100% annoyingly.
You are looking at it backwards Monte. You'll notice that Luke's UserID is 21, Ethan's is 904. I have personal experience that recent outbursts have directly stopped 3 people joining the Edge. & that's just from the limited number of people I met in person at a festival. People won't sign up to block one person. They will just ignore the entire site & everyone on it. I don't have the luxury of second chances. I too used to think the ignore function was the answer to everything, but I was wrong.
I've just sent Ethan a very long email which I'm sure he will read & then he'll be able to reactivate his account. I've no idea how he will take it but I'm going to give him a chance & I ask that everyone else do the same. I have asked him not to antagonise anyone, but that goes both ways. Please be mindful that Ethan is only 14 years old. You've all heard the quote about democracy being two wolves & a sheep deciding who's for dinner, I don't want to log in tomorrow morning to find a mob brandishing pitch forks.
Are you saying it is ok for Luke to make rude posts because he has been a member for a long time but because Ethan is relatively new he will be excluded for rudely defending the wiz against such attacks from Luke. That is the type of rank cliqueism which I predict will eventually be the death of open discussion on this forum.
No. We're trying to tell you that new users are put off joining forums if they see negative behaviour. Your point that Luke is still around is moot because Luke joined first.
Yet people are still joining the forum. If it were universally true that bad behaviour puts people off joining forums then all forums would be in terminal decline and there seems to be no evidence for this. There are more forums now than ever yet most have at least one dick trolling for effect.
Did you spot my note above about my conversations at Camvention? Yes a few people are still joining the forum, but others are not. Your argument is akin to saying it's ok that these patients are not receiving treatment because these patients are. I'm not happy with that.
And how many people might decide not to join a forum which practises censorship and exclusion. Besides which I would judge a forum on the quality and variety of the debate not dick swinging about the number of members. If someone is shallow enough to not join because they find some posts to be annoying whilst not considering the vast majority of interesting debate then perhaps they would not be missed anyway.
Could you not decode my smiley with twinkle, nose, upper lip, underlip with tongue, as not meant sooo serious?
THAT was a smiley? Nope, could not decode that... I thought your cat walked on your keyboard as you pressed 'submit'
None that I have any evidence for.
You may judge the people we sadly won't get to see as you wish.
Things do not have to universally bad to be bad. Things that put off x% of users may still be worth fixing, even if x is not 100%.
Also... if I am no longer allowed to antagonise people I may exclude myself from posting.
I happen to find geeky discussions on siteswap numbers and endless posts on computer coding to be tedious in the extreme but I would never butt into the thread to say so. I just scroll past and look for something more to my liking.
I have not told you you are not allowed to antagonise people. I asked everyone to give Ethan a chance which I think is a perfectly civil thing to do. Either you honestly think that is an unreasonable request, if so why? Or you are trying to provoke me, again if so why?
I think asking people to give Ethan a chance is a perfectly reasonable thing to do . However singling him out by asking him and not Luke or myself to refrain from antagonising anyone is not.
I am trying to provoke you because I disapprove of your actions but i am glad you have finally decided to join the discussion at last.
I believe that labeling yourself as the God Emperor and exersising total power makes you a valid target for my disapproval.
You first complain that you are no longer allowed to antagonise anyone, then you complain that I didn't. Your multiple positions are making me dizzy.
I ask that everyone else do the same
That includes you & Luke.
Please feel free to continue your disapproval.
My postion is solid. I ask that you treat all members the same. Either you insist on a sterile forum where no-one is allowed to antagonise or you allow all to do so. If you read your own post "I ask everyone to do the same" was in relation to giving Ethan a chance not in refraining from antagonising. Luke was not excluded for antagonising the wiz and I have so far not been excluded for antagonising you.
Maybe you overread (or forgot about) the "both-ways"-part in [Orin : ] "I have asked him not to antagonise anyone, but that goes both ways." ?
As Mr Wizard pointed out the 'both ways' part was my way of appealing for tolerance, but in hindsight I should have explicitly stated rather than alluded to it.
Regarding my inconsistent treatment. I don't have a set of hard & fast rules, I just do what I feel is right. Luke, 7b_wizard, you & I have all been around long enough to look after ourselves. Given his relative inexperience I just felt it would be better to isolate Ethan from the storm for a bit.
Funny how Ethan has ended up looking more mature than all of us...
Enough said, no hard feelings your highness, or is it your excellency, how does one address a God Emperor?
Indeed, no hard feelings at all. Please continue to question my decisions. I will get some things right, I will get some things wrong. As tough as being questioned is I think everyone understands each other better now which is a good thing.
Sometimes I get addressed as 'sir', sometimes 'oi wanker', I respond to both equally.
Ah a benevolent dictatorship. My father used to argue that was the most efficient form of government. As opposed to all that time consuming consensus gathering.
> I will get some things right, I will get some things wrong.
I would be delighted if this came to be a touchstone for all at The Edge.
I'm not sure about all the talk about maturity here. Is that a metric we need to compete on? If blocking people is seen as an immature action, why is it built into the forum?
I have used a forum for about 8 years now with include the following rules in the top post of the forum. In total there have been three people banned ever. There is no ignore or blocking function. These rules can work:
These forums are a little different from other online communities, in that they will never be allowed to descend to the depths so common on "teh internets." The rules are simple:
1. Be mindful of your grammar and spelling.
2. Post intelligently
3. Don't be annoying.
Failure to abide by these rules will result in warnings and an eventual banning.
Unless it is relevant to your argument, don't admonish other forum members about their grammar or spelling: our moderators will handle that.
Don't post unless you have something to contribute. Otherwise empty "QFT" posts are considered annoying (see above).
Our moderators can and will correct in red your errors in order to maintain the readability of the forums. There is a spell-checker available, as well as a "Preview Post" button: use them. Repeated violations of the third rule can result in banning via court martial. To date, three people have been banned. If you post intelligently and are an intelligent person, you will have no trouble here. We trust our members to conduct themselves reasonably, and thus don't feel the need to create an extensive code of conduct. It should be obvious to everyone what is and is not appropriate.
Jesus that sounds like a godawful way to run a forum.
1, some people struggle with spelling and grammar that does not make their opinion less valid.
2, elitist nonsense, some people are less intelligent than others but it does not mean they can't contribute meaningfully to a debate.
3, annoying is so subjective. Would I be right in assuming your court martial panel is self appointed or are you at least democratic in gathering such a jury before you decide on an expulsion?
God Emperor your wankerness I withdraw all previous objections there are clearly much worse ways of running a forum.
Yes, elitist. It fits do that forum. Only three people have ever been banned. The court martial was a thread which was open for anyone to comment and try to sway the moderators. You know, just like his very thread we are currently chatting in, in which you are happy you have swung the moderator to your view.
These exact rules aren't appropriate everywhere. My reason for posting them was for the exact reason you wanted, which is some guidelines so it isn't just one person doing what they feel is right at the time, and upsetting people who think the forum should be run in a different way.
Clear rules, whatever they are, reduces ambiguity. The "don't be annoying" rule is specifically left vague though, to catch behavior that is generally found to be unsuitable that can't be caught by nitty gritty lists. A moderator being able to point to such a rule is very good motivation to someone to stop being annoying.
Seriously, don't be so kneejerk in your reactions to this stuff. I suggested these to back you up in that a single God emperor might need some help.
I object to your assertion about a knee jerk reaction. I went away and chopped some firewood and formulated my objections to your rules. I then came back nearly 40 minutes later and posted my thoughts.
Ok there need to be restrictions to what people can say I don't want to read racist comments or personal attacks but I just don't think vague rules about "being intelligent" are the answer. I think Cedric's opinions on self moderation are more useful.
also "yes,elitist it fits do that forum." perhaps you should follow your own advice about using the preview button to make your post more readily comprehensible.
Your post is missing one comma, one full stop (or, for argument's sake, a hypen or colon) and one capitalisation.
What's the name of that internet law about posts which criticise the grammar of another post? I have forgotterisified.
I hate to be a pedant as you know, but I was making a point about comprehension not grammar. But well done, the post count is creeping towards a double century. I'll be happy if it reaches double Nelson.
I wrote that on my phone. The text is small, and there's no edit function. Nobody is perfect.
Why are you still nitpicking? I didn't say those should be the strict rules for this forum. I'm saying maybe there should be some basic guidelines somewhere, to give people a general target to aim for.
And the rules aren't about "being intelligent", but mention "post intelligently". That's a big different. Someone can be very intelligent, and yet post unintelligently, or even unintelligibly. Who knows, maybe 7b_wizard is the cleverest person on the forum. Who knows? His posts certainly don't make it easy to see, if he is.
If you were to write a very simple set of guideline to this forum, what would you suggest?
I would suggest a simple link to "Wheatons Law"
Then we can all be banned because we've all broken it at one time or another.
"If you post intelligently and are an intelligent person, you will have no trouble here"
I'm sorry that after over 20 posts on the subject you still misunderstand my position. I am against censorship and exclusion. I don't want any rules concerning banning members. I don't want to write any guidelines for this forum. I believe open debate is the answer to bad behaviour.
Annoying when people are rude and condescending towards you isn't it Luke?
However I will give you the same politicians apology you gave Ethan. I'm sorry if I caused offence.
Also I would like to apologise to Void for constantly starting sentences with a preposition I know it must annoy the hell out of you.
You've got nothing to apologize for. But at least I now understand that literally nothing I can write will help you, and nothing you reply with will help me. You want no rules or guidelines at all, and I'm starting from the idea that if we were to have some rules or guidelines, it's good to discuss what those might be, or where they might begin, if a moderator wanted to easily show someone the desired behavior of forum participants.
Personally I don't want open debate about the behavior of everyone who starts abusing the forum. I don't want debate about different levels of English writing and comprehension. I don't want open debate about spelling and grammar mistakes in individual posts. It's super tiring. I want a single moderator who can say "Make a better effort to write more intelligibly/not be annoying or else face suspension" and that be the end of it.
And no, you aren't annoying, and I don't find you rude or condescending. I hope that wasn't what you were aiming for, because you failed.
So to sum up;
I am against censorship and exclusion and for open debate.
You are for censorship and exclusion and against open debate.
We must agree to disagree and leave it up to our peers to decide which position they prefer.
We were talking about ways of talking about juggling but feel free to ignore if it bores you.
Maybe if you believe in a block function a possible improvement would be the ability to block a thread in addition to blocking a person.
That way if you are fed up with me talking about off topic things you wouldn't have to risk missing something I have to say about BBU for example.
Of course you may have already blocked me in which case you won't be seeing this post anyway.
Totally with you. This thread is incredibly tiring. Every once in a while I think about sharing my opinion on the subject, then I realize (just like all but 4 or 5 of us), that it just isn't worth it.
I'd like to think there is a lot more grey than this pure black and white view, but whatever makes you happy.
1. It wasn't my own advice. It was an example set of rules.
2. The rule isn't to have perfect spelling. It states "Be mindful of your grammar and spelling." That is very different to holding everyone up to the level of perfection.
3. That wording isn't an accident. Not everyone can be perfect, and there are many people for whom English is a second or third language, or are dyslexic and such. But the rule is for people to write with the aim of using their best spelling and grammar. If this rule was in place, it would be a very, very handy thing to point 7b_wizard at. If he carried on ignoring the rule intentionally, it could help Jon ban him for a while until he at least attempts to raise his standard.
4. Your criticism of my spelling might avoid failing this guide: "Unless it is relevant to your argument, don't admonish other forum members about their grammar or spelling: our moderators will handle that." Which is fine. If you really didn't understand my "do" = "to" mistake, that's fine. I kinda find that hard to believe though. Again, the spirit of that guideline, and the wording, is no accident.
5. Despite any leniency in point 4, you telling me that the rule doesn't work because I myself made a spelling error is exactly the thing the phrase "don't admonish other forum members about their grammar or spelling" is written to negate. You failed at reading comprehension if you thought the rule said only perfect spelling was allowed, and you failed again by picking me up on a single mistake in contradiction of a following guide that is to stop people negating other people's arguments due to errors in their spelling or grammar.
If this rule was in place, it would be a very, very handy thing to point 7b_wizard at. If he carried on ignoring the rule intentionally, it could help Jon ban him for a while until he at least attempts to raise his standard.
And what if someone cannot help the way they write? Some people cannot help it, nor should nor should they adhere to another culture's norm. Direct translations from other languages can be odd to read especially if you didn't know that was the case. Since this is a world wide forum then we don't have the right to enforce it (except the Emperor... then he would be a Tyrant).
Regardless... What is any of this going to achieve? The forum works pretty well these days, apart from a few users posting in alternative styles (of which they are frequently being reminded of). How about we let them be, they're already improving.
Until the next person. And then the next person.
The entire point of "hey, everything's fine, and there are tools for fixing it once people have joined, logged in, discovered the tools, and then used them" is that it isn't working. As in, people are not signing up to the forum because they see the type of posts we are discussing in exactly this thread. This is the point. The point is the very thing we are discussing, over and over.
I also am a member of a (non-juggling) forum with very very similar rules. It has repeatedly been called 'elitist', but besides that it has shaped and contributed more of the culture than any other board in its genre. It after many many years it is still the only correct place to have an in-depth discussion about its topic and has never let me down.
Yup. Same with the forum I took these rules from. At first I couldn't believe that a moderator would actually take the time to correct the spelling and grammar of a new person's post with red text. But you know what? They only ever had to do that to someone once, and rarely at that.
I LOVE the elitism of that forum. It's the reason why I've been chatting there for eight years and am friends with many of them, even meeting up with people on my travels, and staying at their homes sometimes too. And yeah, the amount of creative output by the members of the forum is continually inspiring.
I always feel free to disapprove it's one of the advantages of democracy over totalitarianism.
However I approve of your approval of my disapproval.
A dictature is not "bad in itself" as a states-form or as a social ruling model. It depends on how it's fulfilled. One advantage of a dictature is getting a hold of great and complex diversity of social members (systemic "agents"). The more, when there's potential for conflicts. ( One strong hand will then avoid chaos. Russia e.g. is a wide-spread country with borders to and peoples towards asia, near-east, europe and just as many diverging interests and mentalities - so it's not coincidence that one strong hands have ever been ruling there whilst small countries can 'afford' democracy).
The dictature of the majority is an example for how democracy can be unapt as ruling model (2 wolves vs. 1 sheep).
To quote Winston yet again;
"Democracy is the worst possible form of government - apart from all the others"
The fascination of siteswap digits lies in them being actually real aiming points, both, of a pattern, and in your range of air-space controlled by you.
Ethan and 7b_wizard weren't 100% annoying. They were 100% ignorable. They were 100% stressful to decode and find any worthwhile meaning in. I ignored them for the entire time they were participating in the forum.
I did that for however long it was because I want to read and chat with jugglers I've known for 15 years or so. There's a load of really good discussion here, and I read all of it.
If I was new to the forum, and didn't know the value of the non-spamming, non-understandable posts from a tiny minority but yet still flood the forum, and didn't know there was an ignore function for the non-unannoying posts, I wouldn't have ever joined.
Hey, now, .. WHAT?! Calls "any" my texts "bad" after not even reading them lol ! :o))) haha .. What a statement!? .. now °really° ..
If you were to write using English and appropriate sentence structures/syntax I wouldn't ignore most of what you write. I have no interest in decoding posts, even fairly basic ones like this one.
You appear to have forgotten that communication is passing information to other people in a way that they understand. Good communication means less opportunity for misunderstanding.
I rarely agree with much that Mr Burrage posts but in this case he is correct to state that the majority of your posts are unreadable. Unlike him I try to read most posts.
Just to provide a different view point; whilst I struggle with parsing what most people post, I do tend to find that 7b_wizard's style of writing is easier to get an idea of the tone. The way everyone else writes is so clinical.
I sure the content of some of Ethan's posts were brash, but at least he was enthusiastic. Gave the forum a different feel to the same routine of posts I'd constantly see on here on. Kinda got very samey and formulaic. Which tends to be the case when the same people frequent.
If you want more "young blood" to join then we'll need to accept different writing styles and personalities (within reason). Just remember that behind the wall of text there's a real person and there might be a reason they act the way they do. Don't assume everyone is normal, no one is.
Also quite funny to read these past posts as I usually have Luke blocked/ignored. Made for odd reading.
I also don't see a way to "not accept" people speaking how they do and saying what they want unless they don't harm or offend. (in a world-wide forum)
You're not among yourselves here like .. say .. in your club or on a convo, but if all 1000 users started posting whatever their concerns with juggling are, this maledict thread would be gone with the wind in no time.
I just thought I'd mention that 7b_wizard's posts have been much more readable recently, and it's worth giving him another try.
This is simply not true.
There were very few posts of mine on complicated topics ( e.g. "droppists, hobbyists, creativists" versus "perfectionists, non-droppists", e.g. qualifying a trick and qualifying a trick after a trick) , .. topics, which are in themselves highly liable to inflict misunderstandings by inexact writing (\refering).
Most of my posts were - not always easy, I admit - but understandable.
If there was something, you didn't understand, you could have asked! (instead of chewing on it for a while to come out with it in a witchhunt later on joining a choir, right?)
People here post a lot of insider-stuff liable to not be understood by anyone not adept. So if there is a lack of communication issue, it's thoroughly a mutual one. I of course skip these posts as they don't seem any of by business. I wouldn't think of answering one these posts by saying: "Hey, I skipped that!" lol
I'm here as a juggler for juggling and jugglingcontent. Not as a communication expert or english writer going for Pulitzer.
I had the impression, newbies were even welcomed here if Orin didn't .. it seemed kind'a "his business" even talking to new members on their hi-posts. So where's your "com-mu-ni-ca-tion" then? right.
read-my-lips-italics and - quote-marks.
" .. " - just a short speaking pause to fetch new breath.
"his business" - mixed irony and fixed expression italics and quote-marks.
"right" - minuscule at start of sentence where Capital would be required: the sentence before wasn't finished with the question mark.
.. just as you speak it. How do you guys read comics? or do you only read scientific texts and literature? how do you cope with Shakespeare's punctuation???
Jus' leave me alone with that generalizing my posts as all unreadable sh..rubbish, would yer!
And one more "com-mu-ni-ca-tion"-issue: Why don't you all put all that energy into editing your profiles!
Or post some juggling-content in the first place ..
And btw .. "another try"? .. Else what? Am I on court here? U the judge? What the heck 'd I do to earn all that?
I defend you, pay you a compliment, and suggest that people have another go at reading your posts instead of skipping over them and you fly off the handle!
There's no pleasing some people! :)
yeh, I know. lol. thk!
But you didn't exactly hit the point. Who think, they should skip .. let them skip. As I said before above: I'm mainly writing my posts for those who read them. Not for those who don't lol.
I was also not answering you only, but .. well .. the whole bunch of witchhunters, and them using words like "all, every, always, never, a.s.o." a lot, generalizing a final judgement from one read post only. [Which is - btw - a consequence of the modern information flood also .. before my inner eye, Bowie appears as "man who fell from the sky" watching like twelve tv-s at a time .. you have to filter somehow]. But mainly answering that "communication"-issue uttered by several.
In the post I replied to I understood what you wrote on the second read through. My problem with that is that is that I don't want to have to read your posts twice or more to understand them. I try not to quickly dismiss a poster as unreadable as often there are communication problems caused by the poster writing in a second language, being dyslexic or writing without editing but it appears that you have a deliberate policy of using non standard ways of expressing yourself. This may make it easier for a few people to read e.g. Ian Mrawa but will definitely make it harder for others. As you often post on subjects on which I have no interest it rarely concerns me but as we are having the rather lengthy meta-discussion I thought it might be good for persons other than the usual posters to express a view. That it was immediately countered by Ian is for me a good thing as I don't mind reading others viewpoints. I have no intention of blocking you or even Ethan but I will tend to skip your posts and only read them if others have made interesting comments. A policy that Luke has also suggested he does.
1. burrage publicly states, that he blocked me after finding only one post of mine unreadable.
2. In his post, that I replied to, he calls " a n y of Ethan's and my texts b a d ".
3. Now, how can you judge (any) posts "bad", that you haven't even read (due to having blocked me, remember?) ? That was my simplest logic-reply. If you didn't understand that at first reading, well, then, I don't know what exactly was lacking to understand it. Does this only happen with my posts? Honest?
[ "simplest logic-reply" = That was my reply using most simple basic evident logic. ]
I have read you and Ethan. I have not blocked either of you. I understood what you wrote on the second read through.
May I read that as admitting that - for whatever reason - you were lacking the whole information to understand that post of mine and having to read it twice? And not me writing bad english with queer punctuation?
I'll chime in: I often have trouble reading your posts because if your strange use of punctuation and formatting. Two recent examples:
" a n y of Ethan's and my texts b a d ".
I had the impression, newbies were even welcomed here if Orin didn't .. it seemed kind'a "his business" even talking to new members on their hi-posts. So where's your "com-mu-ni-ca-tion" then? right.
Both of these slowed down my reading. When I logged on just now, there were 120 unread messages, and I make a point to read everything here. Thus, I don't like when I have to slow, or worse, re-read something due to someone's deliberate bending/breaking of English.
If I have to slow because the topic is difficult to me, that's my problem. Again, this is probably not new information to you, but it seems like we're casting votes. So that's mine.
Would this, your vote, go so far as to have me banned for doing that?
It's mere formatting issue .. and .. like I said
It's mere formatting issue, and, like I said before
a) you have queer formatting in comic strips,
b) it is a mutual thing: I also don't understand everything and then want to or then have to skip it or ask what it means,
c) [ forgot c writing below first :o| ]
And, I explained what I meant by formatting that way in that post below it in brackets. Well, that didn't avoid slowing its reading down for you then, I admit.
I do think, formatting can make up for a lot of missing mimics, emphasis, ironic tone, undertones, sidethoughts uttered amidst a sentence when speaking .. short: to write like you speak. That's common in modern chat, small talk, short messaging and hasn't made halt from forums and letter-like postings, newsgroup. It's a question of gotten used to it for readers and writers.
I don't for every trifle want to write a scientific style or only just a correct english like being at school or something. It's my credo of gone with the wind writing to whom it may concern to here and there write down what i think or speak in a brainstormish way or like I'd speak it. It reads fresh and not so elaborated when you're open for it as a reader. I am like that!
Be that however - I got a whole lot of complaints about that here now and I have more than once stated I'd account for that and already changed my posts.
I'd be okey if you skipped such posts of mine (just like anyone skips anything, he doesn't understand or wanna go through). I'd welcome if you'd take them two or three seconds to read again or slower if it's a topic that interests you or even ask me what I meant, but regret if you entirely ignored all my posts categorically.
I want to make this clear again ( @ all critics ):
It is impossible that everyone understands everything. Be that content, formatting, abbreviations, specific (juggler's) lingo, insider stuff. I could give a lot of examples where the average juggling forum user wouldn't know what was going on ( IJDb history allusions; allusions to other platforms' content; HLAIB, drops, levels; "Otherwise empty``QFT´´ posts"?; a lot of local club's insider stuff; and many many more ) Picking one or two or a whole set of posts of mine out to make that "the wizard-can't-be-understood-just-like-an-alien-writing-hieroglyphs"-bubble for a witchhunt on me in general is just boosting a trifle to a storm where simple asking what I meant or a "Hey, can you explain that again?" or skipping that one post would have sufficed.
It's really a bubble that shouldn't be fed anymore now, please!
(In this case, it was a distinct example pointed out from you, though, what exactly I had been asking for) Sry 4 the long read!
No, my vote isn't for a ban or suspension or anything like that. It's from one human to another, saying: I'd like to read what you have to say, and I'm finding it difficult. If you changed a couple aspects of how you write, it would be much easier for me (and probably most others). You are under no obligation to help me, but should you be open to helping me, I thought it useful to outline how you could.
I don't like skipping your posts (especially on subjects that I care about) because you often have interesting things to say. It takes me much longer than a typical post, but 95 % of the time I understand them in the end, and most of the time I find them useful.
I'm sorry that using a couple of your posts as examples came across as witch-hunty. I meant them to show certain aspects of your posts that I found difficult. When critiquing an aspect of someone's writing, I try to be specific; otherwise, they might put lots of effort into "fixing" something that was fine in the first place!
Sure. Shouldn't have doubted.
Changing .. trying .. [ <-- jus' 4 joke that one .. sry 4 slowing you down ;o]p ]
Behalf "changing": Trying to ..
Also .. if no one had stopped me, I think my 'bracketing, interjecting & emphasizing' might even have gotten worse to read - me thinking it would be understood. So, this is a good development for both, readers and me writing.
With all the superfluous punctuation, I prefer to read it as if it was spoken by William Shatner.
.. and - btw - "dismiss a post (or poster)" .. OR ask what they meant wasn't ever an option to you, it seems, now? But giving me lessons in "communication" ..
When I logged onto Juggling Edge today there were more than 60 unread posts for my perusal. I did my best to read them all. I replied only to posts that were replies to my post and I felt needed a response. I don't generally have time (nor the inclination) to ask a poster to explain what they meant. My view is that the obligation is on the poster to try and communicate with their audience and not the reverse. Hopefully all my posts have been understandable on the first reading. I certainly try to make them so. I don't develop a code that others have to interpret to understand my posts. I read through my posts to make sure there are as few spelling mistakes as possible (occasionally I write there instead of their, even though I know the difference, it is a problem I have had since I was about 6). Even so, there are probably people out there who dismiss my posts just because it is me writing. It doesn't worry me. If my dismissing what you write worries you then please try to make your posts clearer. If it doesn't then ignore me and move on.
Is now wondering how many people have blocked him and whether Orinocco can create a little table (maybe anonymised apart from person logged in) of numbers of blocks. Just for the fun of it.
Perhaps you could try posting in a foreign language and then see how many people misunderstand you Nigel. Sometimes one has to make allowances.
Thanks. That is actually a point - I do mainly - not always - think german (e.g. nested sentences and thoughts, e.g. lumping substantives together for abbreviation). And I grant the criticism my partly elaborated and highly correct english which makes them think I could do better ( \right ) if only I wanted to, which is not always the case.
I'm also looking forward to days ahead, when e.g. the chinese jugglers discover the Edge and pidgin will be good enough to convey all the relevant content. ;o]p
You're right. And I'm right. I'm using the forum. I contribute or state in different ways.
Vice versa - when reading or skipping - I go by content, not by person. Also when judging. I judge posts, not a person behind it for being what I think they are. (But I'll make an exception °mhehe° for burrage who just won't quit publicly offending and doing it increasingly bluntly all the while giving him the probable benefit of insane genius).
= So, I'm not ignoring you, but I would - on another day - have flown over e.g. this last post of yours here above, then skipped it for being way off any my topics.
Orin has already stated somewhere else, that that there is actually few blocking going on all in all. It's just become a bubble about principles that imho shouldn't be fed.
My point was it's possible for 1% of the posters to make a lot more than 1% of the posts - it doesn't matter (talking generally here) if only 1% of users are annoying if they make up for it by making 10/20/50% of the posts.
I think I'm going to agree to disagree with you on this one, as you clearly see the world in a very different way to me with much less room for nuanced responses to antisocial behaviours.
Feelings of exclusion and marginalisation has led to many followers of Islam becoming radicalised and left them feeling justified for their acts of atrocity
Has godwins law been updated recently? I think it probably needs an extra clause or two.
I have tried really hard to resist rising to your Godwins law comment but after 24hrs I am still irked by it so I am going to have to respond.
Fair enough if it was an inane thread on your favorite colour bean bag and I had pointed out that only a Nazi would choose all white props then Godwins law would be rightly invoked but this is a thread about censorship and exclusion so although my statement was extreme for effect it is hardly irrelevant to the discussion.
I therefore propose an amendment which states; Anyone invoking Godwins law without proper thought to it's relevance shall be deemed to have run away from the debate and no longer be thought to be of value to the discussion.
I was going to put in a feature where Marvin would instantly close a thread if Godwin's law was invoked. But I thought, "nah, that'll never happen..."
Hahaha - best post winnarrrr!
To answer, yes he has, but not if you didn't notice.
Ahh. Monte, thank you for standing up for me. I can appreciate someone who stands up for what they believe in, and what they believe to be right. However, I would like to state that in no way was I "Censored". As Li'll Paul has said, Orin just took my toy fire engine away for a bit.
I believe I was standing up for the Wiz and myself, and I believe that I should stand up for what is right. However, I may have not delivered my opinion in the correct way, that is true....I do NOT have the right to flood a forum, and I'm sorry my actions pissed some people off.
I see that my words had no effect on Luke whatsoever. You can not change someones behaviour, only Luke can change his behaviour. And it appears Luke has not looked at himself and realized that he sounds like a jerk.
And Monte, you were right about my feeling of bitterness and anger...When Orin first blocked me, my first action was to beat all of Orin's records on video, and then make a rap song dissing Luke...I did that, and the video is still sitting on my desk top....Why don't I post it? I will never post it because during my ban from the edge, I realized and heard a few things that changed me...
My juggling coach told me during one of my lessons, "Don't just juggle for the competition and to beat people, juggle because you love to juggle." After my lesson I realized something, I don't juggle because I love to juggle, I juggle because I want to be THE best. I juggle because I want to beat people, and I want to beat records...This is no longer what I am going do. Because my juggling coach was right, I need to juggle because I love to juggle. So, from now until my death, I will NEVER post a record again. Even if I juggle 9 balls for 20 mins, I will never post it....
The other thing I realized during my time away from the edge, is that I'm not part of a juggling community in real life...When I was banned, I felt a sense of loneliness. I don't really have any good friends, and I don't go to juggling clubs, so it's obvious why I felt that way. Behind the computer screen, I am a dude who (in real life) thinks before he says anything, and is not viewed as immature. I am immature behind the computer screen, and I fully realize this fact...This is not the first time I've been banned from a site...And every time I'm banned it's for the same reason. And that reason is my anger that blows when somebody says something that pisses me off. I don't like it when people are rude to me or to other people...Infact I especially hate it when people are rude to other people! It annoys me...I believe that Luke was rude. I don't like it when people act as if they are above other people. And that is how Luke was acting, and is exactly how he is still acting.
The last thing I would like to say is: Thank you Orin for giving me another chance, I know I have been given many. But I'm glad you still believe that I can change...I will try to tone things down, and I will try to engage in actual conversation instead of being an annoying troll.
This I have to say is by far my favourite thing that has ever been posted to the Edge. Thank you.
For anyone that has Ethan on ignore, please unblock to at least read this post. You won't regret it.
...but I'd love to see that video!
I have no idea how to unblock people. I've looked all over and can't find a link or list of blocked people anywhere.
It took me a while to find it too. Click 'Me' in the menu. Then click 'View all users'. Then find the person you blocked, go to their profile page and unblock them
That could probably be improved, the list of who you're ignoring should be all in one place - like on your profile or settings page
But meta is over ---> there
Indeed it can, from the home page or your profile:
Settings > Other settings pages >
Manage blocked users Manage blocked users and threads
Thanks. Ethan is unblocked. 7b_wizard was unblocked for a single reading of this forum, and I've had no problems with blocking him again almost immediately. Sorry if that offends anyone, but I just can't cope with it all.
"and then make a rap song dissing Luke..."
You got me laughing out loud! Thanks for making my day :), I hope I can get a copy of that through the dark sides of the net some day...!
Welcome back, don't worry about all the fuss. I cringe when I read back what 14 year old Daniel posted on the web, even still what 18 or 22 year old Daniel posted!
I am forever glad to belong to the generation of people who were unable to post stupid shit on the web when we were teenagers because we didn't know it existed.
Welcome back Ethan, I hope you're able to get to a convention sometime.
Welcome back Ethan. I'm very glad you have decided to come back and I am glad you are a big enough man to admit your mistake. The fact than Luke is not big enough to admit his mistakes is his problem not yours. I suggest you take a leaf out of his book an choose to ingnore him. I also feel you should stand up for what you believe just remember that personal attacks do not further your argument and even if you are attacked in a personal way yourself it is far better to rise above it and let them be judged on what they have said rather than sink to their level.
Also don't be afraid to post off topic in future as it keeps me much more entertained than dry discussions of pure juggling content.
I'd also like to take this chance to thank Orin for giving you a chance to redeme yourself, perhaps in the future this will be afforded to all users regardless of their age,longevity on the site or their ability to form a coherant sentence.
Well said Ethan. Thanks for the apology re flooding, fully accepted by me (noting as Monte said that I can't speak for anyone else!)
I'm considerably older than you, but I still find it hard not to antagonise people online at times (usually over politics not juggling). I usually start out with the best of intentions and then, like you, sometimes overreact to something someone says. In fact your very good post above reminds me I should go and apologise to a friend over an over-critical reaction to something they said only yesterday.
I hope you and Luke patch things up too, and I'm sure you won't regret it if you do.
Actually I said you can't speak for everyone. It is possible to speak for someone if you know them well enough' I was just pointing out that you couldn't know how the whole community thinks.
"love to juggle" - wonderful!
" [..] sounds like a jerk." - .. [ choir : ] sounds like jerk praise the lord.
" [..] NEVER post a record again." - ?? oh. Hope your coach will casually find a chinese saying implying that records, winning at combat or in any competition or challenge are not bad 'in themselves' !
@ all doubters & blockers & skip-ers [else 't is "skippers" hm] :
I can appreciate someone who stands up for what they believe in, and what they believe to be right.
.. now who's the grown-up character? And who was "annoying"?
@ Ethan: I don't think, your 'whole person or personality' was at stake .. just that one bunch of flood-posts.
Welcome back. That was a great post and very well considered. However, I hope that you eventually come to a compromise and post some of your records. I suggest that you think of it simply as a way of tracking the progress of the tricks that you're most interested in.
I suggest, he think of it as "beating the world's best" .. with "love" then .. °mhehe°
No, serious .. competition is part of the fun and the love of juggling. And I remember one trick that Ethan gave up on, granting his opp that one record .. so [oupps, sry! Fullstop.] . So, respecting your opp's achievements allows for a lot of hard but fair competition. Also, there is not "the one best" in juggling, but several of them with own specialities or in their distinct discipline.
That's a shame that you're not part of a juggling community in real life.
What country do you live in? Hopefully there are some clubs or conventions that you could get to. It's definitely worth it. Most of my social life revolves around jugglers I met at clubs and conventions, even if they don't juggle any longer!
Welcome back Ethan.
Please consider posting records for the fun of it, not to beat people.
Thanks Ethan, for posting this. I didn't mean to be rude when comparing your posts to 7b_wizards. It's just combined with his, your collected posts were becoming too hard to process. Sorry for any offense.
Also, since then, I've not had any bad feelings towards you, or any beef at all. Nothing personal at all. Your sudden flood against me was just a bit much, and once I discovered the ignore feature, it seemed way easier to remove the problem via software, not using a mental filter. That might not have been the best course of action, as I might have missed any improvement from you or any discussion that might have helped diffuse the situation more diplomatically.
So welcome back!
Hurray, problems resolved, apologies all round and no hard feelings.
Maybe I should apply for that post at the U.N. after all. I could have that little Sunni- Shia problem sorted out in under a week.
So cats versus dogs anyone? I fancy breaking the record for the longest ever thread on the edge.
ok no takers on cats v dogs then. I'll try something closer to your hearts.
Biscuits v cookies then?
By the way nearly all the recipes for biscuits posted on here are actually cookies. I'm sure you don't need me to explain biscuit means twice cooked in French.
I'm on my phone today rather than a proper computer, and this deserves a longer reply than I can stomach typing on my phone...
That said, welcome back! and thank you for responding positively rather than rage quitting :)
Oh, and please don't give up posting your records,
but perhaps just post your actual records instead of gaming it? Everyone wins then.
I just wanted to comment on the part about you juggling to beat people and beat records. I find it a bit funny how different people can be. I mean, sure, I like it when I can impress someone (usually non-jugglers) with my juggling, but being the best or beating records has never mattered to me. Well... To be honest, I wouldn't really have a chance if I wanted that either, since I started juggling at age 30. I want to become better than I am mostly to be as good as the other jugglers in my club, to be able to do more advanced passing patterns. Actually, one of my favourite things about juggling is that it is so non-competitive. Most jugglers I know don't see juggling competitions as something important. Most jugglers I meet are happy to share tricks and give advice about how I can improve my technique.
I use the "records" on the Edge only to track my own progress, and so far only for my 4 clubs juggling, because that is what I am working on the most. I don't see any reason not to post any records at all, I probably would too if I found one that I knew I can beat, but I practice what I want to learn and juggle the patterns that are fun to me, I don't care if a thousand people can already do those things way better than me. Well, I guess I'm just not a very competitive person.
Oh, and I do hope that you can find your way to the IRL juggling community too, because it's an awesome community! I have felt very welcome since I was a beginner (really... at my first juggling convention I found it difficult to throw a "double" from a 3-club cascade...). Besides, passing is the best kind of juggling, and that is difficult to learn without other jugglers. ;)
Welcome back Ethan and congrats on your very thoughtful, honest and brave post.
I also want to add my vote of confidence for Orin - I think Ethan's return post is clear evidence that you made the right call in this situation.
(I know I'm a few days behind - I've been a bit scared of this thread)
I just linked (\merged) 7 ball splits to
The merged records are now to be found under 7b splits.
[I actually right-clicked in the merge-dialogue-window, which already did merge to ([66x],2)* .. so I merged again to have them under splits ( - else I'd have discussed or asked which writing to prefer) .. hope, it's okey]
.. ["to be found under 7b splits" .. ] using record search, or under 7 ball  in the "Records section statistics" --> balls --> 7 .
Btw 2 is same too (but that seems to have been linked already).
Seems fine to me.
I'm also enjoying the fact that you think I might need help searching for records on the Edge!
Note  is a bit different, as it implies that you are doing squeeze catches!
Do you imply, they therefor shouldn't be linked together?
I was - btw - referring to this: http://www.jugglingedge.com/smalltalk.php?ThreadID=2088&SmallID=14886#Small14886 ( [#n ball] "horizontal split multiplex", lukeburrage).
I also believe, some slight differences in many siteswaps can hardly be described by siteswap-notation only, like `galloping´, slight delays, different dwell-times for different throws, squeeze catches(?), .. so siteswap hardly ever describes an actual juggling act wholly exactly.
I'm also not sure, that  couldn't be done without squeeze catches - i e.g. spread them by different lever (but I don't know what exactly a "squeeze catch" is).
If you do  with precise timing then 2 objects will be landing in the same hand at the same time. That's a squeeze catch.  is therefore significantly harder than ([6,6x],2)*.
Very instructive! .. but I doubt people logging their records will make that difference. And I also doubt, that even skilled jugglers doing e.g. the -splits will not have a slight delay between the double-caught props. Which would make the juggled splits sort'a hybrid in matters of writing them down.
If someone logged a record for  with a delay between the catches then I wouldn't accept it. It's certainly possible to do it with proper squeeze catches. If we allow people to submit a record by doing it incorrectly then it devalues the efforts of the people who are doing it correctly.
Maybe we have to distinguish between very high level juggling records and world record level versus users logging their practise efforts and successes here on the Edge. I think it would be hard to apply your very high standards ( \ demands on records' valuability ) on users just sharing and comparing their levels by logging here.
.. and for those who care, commenting their records offers the opportunity to precise their record's details. (Even without video evidence)
I think that's mostly because  is very hard. I don't think people should put records up for db97531 under the siteswap 'db' and say it's obvious that the person didn't mean db because it's obvious that they weren't actually doing db!
If you aren't catching the 4 and 3 at the same time it's kind of like writing (4,4) for 4 ball async fountain - yes, you will never get it perfectly on time, but if you're not very very close then it's a different trick!
But then, when people say they're doing the pattern  or , they practically never mean with a squeeze catch.
> I also believe, some slight differences in many siteswaps can hardly be described by siteswap-notation only
That's because siteswap is neither intended for nor suited to describing some of the finer points of a pattern.
Siteswap theory was never meant to describe all aspects of a pattern, although it is a widely held misconception that it does. For instance some people might interminably argue that 333 is a cascade, whereas 522 is a slower and bigger cascade, and 900 is a *really* high cascade, when in fact all three expressions are functionally indistinguishable within the terms of SS.
At its simplest it describes order of events, period. As such, it does a bloody good job of describing exactly what it intends to, and nothing more; it takes meddling jugglers to start to overload it with all manner of unintended nuances of meaning.
I would argue that 333, 522 and 900 *are* distinguishable (although they share common characteristics) in that with an event happening on every beat the first "every beat is a throw", the second "1 throw, two hold beats" and the third is "1 throw, two empty hand beats"
I don't really buy the argument that "they're the same pattern with different timeslice resolutions" because as you say, siteswap says nothing about timing, only order.
522 for example gives you the opportunity to do something with those twos (so many "active two" options) which aren't possible to accommodate within the 333 throw order.
900 gives you the opportunity to do something with your empty hands (eg snap your fingers) which it's not possible to accommodate within the 333 or 522 orders.
So while I agree wholeheartedly with your intentions, I think you picked a poor example to illustrate it with :)
Yes... I like it a lot.
Also, I'm a little bit jealous. I just imagine a lot of fun while practicing and coming up with the tricks for this.
Yay! I'm a massive fan of the Raw Art people. They really put a lot of effort into the production of their films & it really shows. This video works so much better with an industrial setting rather than on the opulent red stage we saw a few months ago at the Kyiv Municipal Academy of Circus and Variety Arts Exam.
So what do people think of the term 'post-circus'? From the Raw Art website:
From the point of ideology, post-circus closely resembles art-house in cinema – the same non-commercial ground, DIY-ideology (“Do It Yourself”), deliberate drift from the mass audience. As in art-house, the main accent is on the actor’s inner world, personal conflicts and moral dilemmas. Unlike classical (and many modern) circuses, with their desire to entertain the spectator, to impress through visual opulence, post-circus is characterized by its urge to make the viewer think, sympathize with what is going on, to raise questions and give an opportunity to find an appropriate answer independently.
I half disagree with the 'deliberate drift from the mass audience' part. I think the films they are producing are far more mass-market & accessible than trad-circus. But is that more down to the channels they are using & the marketing rather than the content?
The first "Raw Art" act I saw (an act directed by Taras) was pre internet video or youtube channel days, and it felt very fresh to me. I really enjoy a lot of the acts, including this video (I didn't watch all of the live video due to early drops).
However, I don't see anything new within the skill sets itself, and in the last 10 years the presentation has become more formulaic. Wear black, don't smile, present tricks with as little fuss as possible. Removing the trappings of normal circus, especially in the videos, makes them more accessible, not less, as you say.
The part I'm not entirely sure about is "urge to make the viewer think, sympathize with what is going on, to raise questions". What am I meant to think about? What questions are raised? Cynically, the only question I have when watching Raw Art acts is "Why do they all look and feel the same, despite different skills on display?"
I thought about, how the (parts of the) performance relate to "DRUGS" .. but I didn't get too far: .. imagining to be the one juggling while lying, it should feel like throwing up- & downwards alterningly .. then, crossing paths in motion in carousel .. then, leapfrogs
now you can start finding a `drug´ part in all that, like "gravitation deliberately annihilated"(?), "loosing the bottom under your feet"(?), "turning upsidedown"(?), "no plan"(?), .. and the synchronicity with music's beat might convey being trapped in perfectly fitting movements, throws & catches, "no way to get out", .. all of this with a big question mark whether to if and what the message is or might have meant to be conveyed or left unclear, open or the performance could have just aswell been titled "new conformity" ..
.. or .. if the clubs are the "drugs" and they jugglers seem to have synchronized with them club-drugs' flight-paths and also they and them with music and physical laws and everything, bodies and minds too, .. are there then not `good´ nirvanic drugs versus `bad´ toxic drugs?!
.. so is it just a performance of skill, nicely looking and to watch and to do, or is it a metaphoric piece of art expressing something more than only what you see .. maybe conveying a feel of life, something `bigger´ .. ?
I just saw the whole thing as a statement about addiction to juggling, and that powerful final metaphoric image - all those discarded syringes lying on the floor...
"Post-circus" sounds like someone trying to claim new territory that is actually already occupied.
When the New Circus movement started in the 1970s it aimed for a lot of what these guys are claiming - non-commercial, move away from pure spectacle, make the viewer think, raise questions etc. Also the DIY component - I'm assuming that means making circus happen themselves, as opposed to working for an existing circus.
In that sense they are 40 years behind.
For the rest:
- main accent on the inner world, personal conflicts and moral dilemmas - perhaps what makes this different is the 'main accent', but I would still say that plenty of circus artists are already exploring this territory.
- deliberate drift from the mass audience. Why would that be a goal? If the focus is on making 'internal' 'morally-conflicted' work I suspect the audience will drift away of its own accord ;)
Perhaps they mean 'not attempting to appeal to the mass market' but that's kind of the same as non-commercial.
Good on 'em for having a philosophy with stated goals. I am a huge fan of people attempting to break new territory, although I do tend to be rather suspicious of self-created labels - they just sound like marketing to me.
It's a really interesting topic, though - acts that actually achieve emotional or thought-provoking response. I can already think of a couple of aerial acts and quite a few duo-acro acts (they obviously lend themselves to 'personal conflict' themes). Can't immediately think of any juggling acts that qualify - I'm gonna have to think on that one. I might start a new thread, so as not to confuse this one.
"The I nner world, personal conflict and moral dilemmas" would seem to describe every angst ridden circus school aerial act I've seen in the last 20 years
I'm getting a bit bored of it to be honest
Actually, what I like about this video is that it is completely lacking in angst, inner worlds, personal conflict, or dilemmas of any kind. It's just fun passing choreographed to cool music. The end.
Agreed. Angst is overdone and overrated.
I wonder... do black beanies + sunglasses = angst?
Fail from me, I'm afraid. I can't think of a single act in juggling or circus, that has stirred a 'deeper' emotion in me (not counting emotional reaction to the skill or presentation - excitement, disappointment etc.)
The acts I had thought of initially, on further thought were 'portraying' emotions - Mouvance trapeze duo, 7 Doigts de la Main acro duo etc. - but while I love those acts, they still don't genuinely make me 'feel' the emotion they are portraying.
Also, haven't been able to think of any act that's been genuinely thought-provoking regarding the wide world outside.
Anybody else got any?
I recently watched this from the Circus Geeks blog:
I thought it would have worked much better without the skipping. Most of the circus-theatre I've ever seen has left me thinking that it was less than the sum of its parts. Circus skills generally get in the way of telling a story, they are a distraction that breaks rather than adds to the narrative. We're in the middle of absorbing a story, then we snap out of it as we appreciate a performed skill.
The show Not until we are lost by Ockham's Razor (Ooh! New show!) is the only exception that comes to mind for me. This company really focuses on character, & the skills they perform somehow don't get in the way but I can't put my finger on why.
The story is real, and uses the actual words of the 15-year-old boy involved. The whole show was a series of short pieces, with the words directly taken from interviews on sexuality, intolerance & religion. A very powerful and often disturbing show.
Orin, I agree with you totally that the skill gets between you and the story, but in this case I feel it works to great effect. The skipping keeps the audience slightly distanced from the story, so when the stabbing comes the contrast of the reality of that moment makes it even more visceral. Then afterwards, returning to the skipping becomes a giant 'fuck you' to the attackers, if you see what I mean.
I hadn't thought that through until right now, although I saw the show 5+ years ago. I may be over-thinking it (ya reckon?)
I'm so pleased you posted this, because it's the first time I've seen a piece that takes the 'problem' of skill-based performance and turns it to advantage.
I think you're on to something here. I saw the vid a couple of days ago on /r/juggling and couldn't quite bring myself to comment there.
The thing is, it's a really nice video and I enjoyed it a lot. Most of us here understand and respect just how technically difficult the piece was and will have no complaints about the skill and dedication that has gone into it. But to repeat, it's a nice video, as distinct from it being a nice juggling routine
It's really well planned, lit, and shot ... but I found myself wishing it had been given to an editor who was unfamiliar with juggling. I don't care enough abut the juggling routine for it to be shown as a linear narrative, capturing every element of it, in its correct order and excluding nothing; instead I feel it was a missed opportunity to use a little license to make it more exciting.
Just to clarify, I was awarding myself a fail, not the Drugs vid. Sorry for the confusion.
In my previous post I said I'd dig up some examples of acts that elicited emotional response, which I have failed to achieve. I was too lost in my own headspace to notice I appeared to be awarding the initial video a fail. :D
I loved Drugs, as a piece of juggling-on-video, although I do see where you're coming from.
Two great juggling acts that are very emotional are:
Tangram (Stefan Sing & Cristiana Casadio), an exploration of a relationship. I saw it at EJC Munich and it took my breath away for the emotional punches as much as the skill.
Smashed (Gandinis) - a show with so many facets, one of which is that it is pretty shocking in places, even on a third viewing. I love it.
Casadio & Sing, Tangram: https://youtu.be/oEQOo9mHKs4 .. ( several versions of it: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stefan+sing+casadio )
Gandini Juggling, Smashed: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gandinis+smashed ( = many versions .. indoor, outdoor, street-perf., stand-up, short)
Fair enough, but you won't get more than a hint of the emotional impact from those trailers, in my view. One reason I didn't add links.
No worries - I can't imagine the trailers would put anyone off! But in my view these are both theatrical pieces to be watched all the way through, preferably live.
The work of Matthias Romir is very much thought-provoking and has "stirred emotions" in me.
If you don't know him, be sure to check out the trailer of his show Life is short stories.
I can't really sympathise with "Raw Art". It feels like they're just setting up a brand.
Alternative music, minimalistic costume design, the synthesis of different art forms, experiment in staging – these are the characteristics of post-circus, and [Raw Art] project. These are either empty claims or nothing new/special.
Also, what is "raw" in any of their pieces? What does it mean? I think they only chose this title because it sounds cool.
Personally I love "Raw Art". They make cool videos.
And in my opinion the "Raw" means the raw talent that each of the performers has.
Put those guys in sequins and pancake, give them a olde circuse musick soundtrack and stick them in a cold big top. Would that act really look out of place?
I also suspect (maybe someone who knows more about it can help out here) that the clown tradition has had plenty going on in the way of inner worlds, personal conflicts and moral dilemmas.
And I don't know what's more DIY-ideology than a traditional travelling circus.
In other words I think I agree with you there Orin. For sure, arty-bollocks circus is a thing, but I'm not sure this is it.
in other news I note that having the Reply button on the bottom of the post is a great affordance for replying without reading what everybody else had to say first!
not that I have any better idea where a reply button would live.
I soooooo wish they had called themselves 'Arty-bollocks Circus'.
Re clowns' personal conflicts and moral dilemmas, I assume you mean whether or not to do birthday parties?
Bollocks: https://youtu.be/beWKA9b-6ic [les founambules, 1992] take a seat, fasten belt and prepare sth to bite on .. °hoo-hooh° .. °whoopp° ° ° HAHAHaHahaaa ° °
can you make that it reappears after about 2 seconds, so I don't have to reload the page to click it again?
Why isn't there a "like" button on the Edge? I bet somewhere on the Edge there's a long thread arguing about it;
A "like" button would be fun!!!
Ethan: "oooo! look! Orin posted a video of flying monkeys!!!!!"
Ethan: *clicks "like" button*
Ethan: *clicks it again, and again, and again, and 100 more times*
Ethan: "this is more fun then juggling!!!!" "I'll never be bored again!!!!!"
ohhh......now I see why we don't have a like button;)
Then Ethan can claim the record for pressing the "Like" button the most times on Juggling Edge
Remember all the indignant butthurtin' over Fushigi balls? Well now there's Yoshigi. Clicker apoplexy in 5..4..3..2..1....
This ad is so offensively shouty American that I'm calling Poe on it - I honestly can't tell whether it's a clever parody or not. Enjoy it in all it's autoplay-on-repeat goodness - https://www.getyoshigi.com/
I'll get one :D
The -shigi ending suggests a relation to fushigi.. But fushigi was not produced by Wham-o, right?
Where did you find out about this? Google knows nothing about yoshigi except for this one website!
I don't get the point of renaming established props. What do they really hope to achieve? I understand that getting to the top of the search results for kendama is going to be pretty hard for a new company. But the new name is only going to be found by people who don't know what a kendama is, & the new name will only last as long as long as it takes for the newbie to meet a kendama player.
"Hey, wanna buy something that has been around for yeeeeaaars and has never been interesting enough to reach you? Well, it is going to be a fad tomorrow!"
That is a hard sales pitch... Rebranding makes rehyping easier, and kendama is rare enough that you wont meet a player any soon...
Besides, you launch 20 campaigns like this, only one needs to become a hit like the hoop craze, and you're cashing in!
There is a balance between SEO and renaming an established prop. The makers of the Yoshigi must think that they can get more sales from a renamed prop than from the second page on Google.
I'll research SEO for the keyword 'juggling' further; right now it appears that only Greatland.com and Wired.com are using SEO to promote their content in the Google search results.
Those are subtly different from astrojax being two large balls and two small balls on a string - rather than 3 equally-sized balls on a string that is astrojax.
Monkey Knuckles: https://store.yomega.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Monkey-Knuckles-GoldBlack-L.jpg
Good point. I noticed the size difference and the knots, but I had forgotten the third ball. D'oh!
The second paragraph in the Controversy section in the Contact Juggling Wikipedia article explains:
The "Fushigi Magic Gravity Ball" ignited the controversy....
the ball appeared to float by itself....
mastered "in just minutes."....
not by skill but by means of a special prop....
exploiting contact juggling.
The Fushigi ball is no longer in production.
So (some part of) the video appears to be made 2 months ago by Kuma films.. You know, those guys who make really epic juggling vids! http://www.kumafilms.com/
The other good players I can recognise from the KenCastle pictures: http://www.pikore.com/thekencastle , so we could ask them what's up...
Alright, look at this website and read the first sentence: http://www.koblikov.com/index.php/resume
If your to lazy to look at the site then this is what koblikov claims: "Alexander Koblikov is currently considered the best juggler in the world." This is a really bold claim!!! I mean, could I say that on my website???? "Ethan Brain is currently considered the best juggler in the world!"?????
It surprised me because I didn't know koblikov was so full of it......."sigh" first it was Gatto, then Garfield, and now Koblikov...........It's weird, it's like all the good jugglers are really egotistical and full of it......hmmmm, I might do a study on it. Give me a week and I'll have a 50 page paper on the subject. No joke.
The source is obviously a non-juggler. Further down on the page:
"Phenomenal technique ... poetic and stylish ... simply the best juggler in the world"
It's helpful to look at this from the perspective of a non-juggler. An uneducated non-juggler may think that there could be a 'best' juggler in the world. While, jugglers know that due to the diversity of juggling, there can never be a 'best' juggler. Most jugglers would agree that Koblikov is the best multiplex-numbers juggler in the world, the probably isn't a majority agreement that he, or anyone else, is the best ball juggler. The skill is too diverse and multifaceted to have a best.
Gatto will always be exceptional in the juggling world because in his prime, he was almost unanimously considered the best juggler by other jugglers. Since then juggling has grown, and now it's only possible to be the best at a given style or aspect of juggling.
On Gattos channel I remember him posting a video about his daily practice routine(I'm too lazy to get the link).
I noticed that he didn't drop much in his practice, he focused on perfecting the basics instead of spending a long time trying to get a new trick. Do you think it's possible that not dripping in your practice, no matter the difficulty, could affect your ego?
I remember Gatto saying on his forum once that he sees things in slow motion compared to other people. I think he literally believes that he has some kind of juggling super power. This attitude is probably what made him so good and the reason why so many top jugglers (and top sports stars in general) have a big ego. They simply wouldn't be able to reach that level of skill without extreme confidence in their potential.
Nice theory, but haven't we all met a lot of humble superstars as well? Maybe they are not at the actual top, but definitely close to the top! Do you consider yourself to have a big ego/extreme confidence in your potential? (I consider you to be a juggling star)
I don't know if Alexander truly believes the statement on his website, but if I were him I'd put exactly the same out there. For marketing to non-jugglers I'd feel very comfortable to repeat the (too)high claims of newspaper.
I do have extreme confidence in my potential because I believe that everything comes down to training and not genetics. By this logic everyone else has the same potential and so I don't consider myself to have any greater potential than anyone else. Some jugglers think this way, while others (maybe Gatto) believe that they have some kind of natural or God given advantage over others. Either way helps to promote confidence. Maybe the second way is stronger psychologically but is too illogical for me to believe in.
Thanks for your praise by the way - that will help my ego for training this evening.
That's an admirably egalitarian attitude, but I don't think it's accurate to say that genetics plays no part.
Some people definitely have a genetic advantage over others for a particular skill - eg. shorter people tend to learn tumbling more readily than taller people. That's not to say tall people can't learn it, but it usually takes them more effort/time to achieve the same standard.
Many high-level skill training institutions (eg. The Royal Ballet) screen/select based on body attributes (ie. genetics). Chinese acrobatic troupes assign acts to trainees based on their physical characteristics - if you don't like the act you're assigned to... tough luck!
I would expect that in juggling, a genetic predisposition to agility would be more valuable than strength - it's just a guess however, I don't have any evidence to back it up. In fact, now I'm thinking about it, juggling requires more hours of maintenance than most other circus skills, so some level of obsession has to be an advantage - perhaps that's the true intersection of training and genetics...
You talk about agility, strength and obsession like they're things you're born with. They can all come from previous experience, which includes training. Genetics can have some effect but as you said, training can overcome any disadvantage. There's quite a lot of flexibility in juggling for different techniques (e.g. high and slow vs low and fast) and so I think genetics has even less relevance. Take Alex Barron and myself for example. We have very different genetic body types but are the only people to have flashed 13 balls.
Ballet is a bit different because it's highly aesthetic, which I'm not bothered about much with my juggling. However, I think that even a ballet dancer's physical characteristics could change with training if it were required.
Could Danny de Vito train himself to be tall enough to play basketball? Could a male gymnast seeking to improve his splits train himself to be a woman so that he could enjoy the extra pelvic span and flexibility that bestows? Can an amputee paralympian train their limbs back?
Some aspects of human genetic disposition are plainly and inviolably expressed. I take your points about training but that simply isn't the whole story, genetics matters, sometimes unavoidably so.
Contact sports are a bit different to juggling, but I do think that Danny de Vito could have become a basketball player. Not all of them are tall. Being a different gender isn't really the kind of genetics I was talking about but I do believe that men and women can train to be as good at most things. Being an amputee isn't genetic but I see your point. Of course if you take it to the extremes then genetics has some influence, but not much in my opinion, especially for juggling.
I'm all for believing that a lot of stuff is down to practise and learning, and certainly in juggling you don't need particular advantages as much as other things. Worth noting though that juggling isn't as competitive/high level as quite a lot of sports.
Also - http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2013/06/27/nba-draft-is-being-7-feet-tall-the-fastest-way-to-get-rich-in-america/
Also, with regards to basketball, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest_players_in_National_Basketball_Association_history lists all players who have been 5ft 9 or less in the NBA. Given that 5ft 10 is apparently the US male average, the number of players who are below average height who have ever played in the NBA is less than two squads. I can't believe this doesn't show a huge genetic advantage, and even more so when you realise that all but one of those played the same position.
One of the things I like about juggling is, in fact, that this sort of factor is far less pronounced.
I suspect height is a big advantage in combat.
I feel like you're missing out on a couple of other explanations here. I am of the opinion that small differences when you're young make a much bigger difference as you grow up. Similar to Malcolm Gladwell's example in Outliers of hockey players being born in earlier months.
Those who are naturally taller are more likely to be able to play decently *without* any training (it's fairly obviously easier to shoot without practise if you're taller). Having a slight advantage, especially at a young age, makes people far more likely to consider it as a hobby or career. As with the hockey example, the small difference at the start is increased as they practise more/join a club/get more special training and are more motivated to continue. I'm not convinced that a shorter person (even significantly shorter) couldn't become equally useful in a team, sure they might need more training focused on accurate shooting but they would likely also have an easier time at other areas (weaving throughout other players, for example).
It's also almost certainly exacerbated by societal influences too, I've on multiple times heard tall friends asked if they play basketball and I suspect shorter people playing basketball would have definitely faced significantly more dissuasion to continue, coupled with the fact that many may feel intimidated being significantly shorter than everyone else on the court (though I don't have even anecdotal evidence for the last two, I'm fairly confident that they would have some influence).
In general my feeling is that in absence of a major physical disability, a few years' training can overcome pretty much every genetic difference (I remember a redit AMA by a circus performer saying something to this effect too, I think he said one year though). I also think height has less of a difference in combat than you think. I'm consistently able to beat those taller than me if I've had more experience. Even if we're about the same level, it's just a matter of you can't do the whole obvious throw-one-club-really-high-and-do-stuff-tactic and have to think/plan a bit more.
I'm not saying that height has no impact, I'm just saying that the vast majority of it is psychological.
Muggsy Bogues who used to play in the NBA was 5'5. Height does not have the advantage in basketball most people think it does. Danny de Vito could have played basketball
Training only goes so far I think. I read in an article a few months back that extreme intelligence and creativity is more about genetics.. according to the head of Mensa.
Well Mensa would say that. Intelligence is down to training as well in my opinion. You're only intelligent in the mental activities that you've trained. If some people appear to be intelligent at many things then it's only because they've learnt that intelligence is only down to training and so have not been put off learning new things (growth mindset vs fixed mindset).
I am all up for the growth mindset. But that does not include ignoring the influence of our genetics.
Why would the head Mensa say that? According to your theory, his believe would probably lead to less intelligence for him and his followers, rather than motivate people to train harder...
If cognitive disabilities are a thing (which I believe they are), why would cognitive abilities not be one?
Anyway, I realise we've had this discussion before at the edge, it seems our believes haven't changed since then ;)
It's in mensa's interest to maintain an air of exclusivity as their entire business model is built on persuading people that they are special and unique
Exactly what LP said regarding Mensa.
I'm willing to accept the possibility that some people may be genetically predisposed for higher intelligence to some small degree, but I would think it would only give them a small head start, which others could make up for by training. Of course it will be psychologically harder for them to catch up because they will probably believe they have a permanent disadvantage, which is why it's not often observed.
My personal experience is that I was pretty much remedial at almost all subjects at school until I was about 14. At that point I began to become interested in programming and building things at home. This lead to me improving greatly in maths and science at school and ultimately to me becoming an engineer. Funnily enough though, it had no effect on the other subjects such as foreign languages, which I never improved at (something I'm only now trying to compensate for).
Ah, I wanted to add:
Like you, I also base my believes on personal experience.
I was pretty much excellent at all subjects at school, until I was about 14. My parents are both intelligent people, though I don't believe they have trained me in any way. They were too busy managing their own lives at the time. School did not teach me either, school has always bored the shit out of me. People who did not perform well got extra attention and help. I received praise, but no extra stimulation.. I never had to learn, practise, do my homework, ended up being allowed to come less hours to school when I was around 10 and spent that extra time talking about video games and attending social training.
My primary school class consisted mostly of children of immigrants, and was located in a disadvantaged neighborhood. Also I was among the younger people in my class. All those 3 things should give me a statistically smaller chance to perform well...
Still my IQ tests scored very high!
So, my believe is that this is mostly genetics, since I can't imagine what advantage I have in stimuli and training over others...
At age 14 I dropped out of school, I believe mostly because the lack of stimuli terribly ruined my curiosity. :(
What do you think about on the other side of the distribution? That some people may be genetically predisposed for lower intelligence? I've met people that, no matter how hard they try (it seems) they struggle to learn certain things. I'd considered it largely a genetic difference.
Then, to me, it seems like intelligence would be about Gaussian. I have no reason to think that way (I know how IQ is defined, but am not completely convinced with it) but it seems that, without information telling me otherwise, it makes sense.
Unless they have some actual mental disability I think that it's mostly down to mindset. If people consider you to have lower intelligence then you'll believe that yourself and not make the effort to learn new things. People will also not challenge you as they would others.
They may think they're trying and spend a lot of time working on something, but will get nowhere without confidence that they will succeed. Many people can also get stuck in an ineffective training strategy and are unwilling to change.
Hmm, I don't think I see mental disability that discretely, more as a spectrum. Well, at least for some disabilities.
I had a particular person in mind with my last post. I don't think she has an inefficient training strategy, and, at least in the classroom, she was challenged about as much as a typical student. If it's not genetics, I imagine it must've been due to earlier childhood experiences.
I remember you saying this before - brains are the same and it just down to mindset, I'm still not sure I agree with that theory. Aren't there different kinds of intelligence? Surely it's not just about learning ability, (although I think genetics also has a part in this), it's also what people do with the things they've learned. The article was about child geniuses, head of Mensa said 40% nurture 60% nature.. or perhaps the other way round. This is what most people would say I think, myself included.
I guess someone with bad genetics could overcome anything with training, although I have some sort of problem called hypotonia and I barely have any muscle memory, which is the key to juggling, which cause me to get 5 balls for 100 catches almost 4 years after I started juggling
I also seem to see things in slow motion compared to other people and I am sure I am not a juggling super power. I suspect most edgers gather visual information at a faster rate than the general population and can see several "frames" of the incoming object in a situation where the non-juggler might not even see one. It comes with practice and it brings with it changes in the brain, an expanded visual cortex. Gatto had more practice than most and at an early age when the brain is more moldable.
It's possible that this could be trained, but how could you possibly know that you're seeing things in slow motion compared to others?
I guess I should restrict my claim to seeing objects moving in the air in my vicinity and some times noticing the experience is reminiscent of watching a slow motion video. I remember a time before I had this kind of experience and I see children that behave as if they are not seeing the details of the flight path that are obvious to me. Of course there is no way to know exactly what other people are experiencing.
The training idea comes from the first before and after MRI study showing changes in the brains of people who were trained (to juggle), compared to sex and age matched controls.
I'm no expert, but how we measure the passing of time may be directly related to the amount of activation in our brain. As someone improves at juggling they will be getting greater activation in their brain as they take note of things that they weren't previously aware of, which may give the impression that time is passing slower.
I've seen things in slow motion once - when I rolled my car. The cliche of everything going into slo-mo was absolutely true. It was a very interesting experience, but not sufficiently interesting to want to repeat ;)
I have had some slow motion experiences when I have been training a lot. It's something that can happen when you're in deep, not a super-human experience, but more of a meditative experience.
Alright, I have a question for all you jugglers who travel a lot.
The last time I went to England, I was stopped by the security people who scan your bags/shoes/backpacks ect... They looked at my N8 juggling balls and asked me TONS of questions. They then like, swabbed them with this cloth or something, and put the cloth into this machine.......It took a long time, and they acted like I was some sort of terrorist.......How can I stop this from happening again? Does anybody know any tricks?
Once upon a time you only had to worry about seed-filled beanbags, nowadays any filling could be suspicious. N8s are made by Gballz and he has done plastic filled balls in the past (I have some), so maybe you could get plastic filled N8s. Still suspicious, but at least they're not organic and wouldn't be destroyed if you tried to enter New Zealand or Australia.
Buy some small stage balls maybe, they're hollow and filled with nothing.
Can you not just put them in your hold luggage rather than your hand luggage? That's normally fine. I wouldn't like to take beanbags in my hand luggage, but I did take clubs on one occasion.
I have travelled with my seed-filled MMX balls in the hand luggage, but only within Europe. No problems so far. I always put the clubs in the hold luggage because I have heard there could be problems getting them through security.
Either dont't travel, or don't travel with N8s. Things which are hard to identify are necessarily going to get flagged as suspicious, simply because it is unknown whether they represent a threat or not, so they are treated as such until they prove otherwise.
I suspect the swab is to take a sample of any trace of anything volatile which is then popped in a spectrometer for quick analysis and matching against a database of substances known to be threatening.
This happened to me on the way back from the Dutch about ten years ago. They discovered nothing and sent me on my way, despite the whip in my luggage, and the ancient wrap of speed which was lurking unbeknownst to me in the bottom of the bag I dug out of the loft to travel with! I don't think they care so much about neatsfoot oil or dodgy white powders as they do about explosives and their precursors, biological agents, and so on. Same goes for juggling balls - once they prove to be non-threatening they just move on and mildly hassle someone else.
AAAAAAA!!!! "Don't travel with N8s"?!!?!? What would I do while I'm waiting for people who take WAY to long to use the bathroom on the plane? What would I do when the movie that's playing is annoying and I'm bored out of my mind?
Or maybe I could yell in the line to the security thing "THIS IS NOT A BOMB. NO NEED TO WORRY."
It didn't so much leave me wondering how as why. Probably the most baffling thing about it was why an electric chainsaw suddenly acquired a petrol engine for the second cut
I found it hugely entertaining! But yeah, perhaps not for any of the intended reasons...
It must have cost him a huge amount of money to put together.
That can't be a cheap prop, and I shudder to think how much rehearsal time those assistants needed.
I had expected so much more from that preview image :(..
I think he had better spent his money on dance lessons and a magic director rather than on his expensive prop and girls....
Original trick, but a cheap version nonetheless and poorly performed... I am not a magician, and I think I can do better than this.
Dobby you have shared so many great videos with us. This, my friend, was not one of them, not for the right reasons at least.
That was fucking hamtastic! It had everything - a bloke trying *really* hard to look enigmatic, some slappers with a severely restricted wardrobe budget, a canapé piece consisting of a small trick made large but in no way better, and in the set piece an effect that was bleedin' obvious even to me.
To be honest, I enjoyed it at the same level as Barnesy, and really just posted as a curiosity.
However, the strong responses got me thinking - are there any genuinely great stage illusions? I’ve watched a lot of magic in my time, and for many years now I’ve been skipping past the illusions, because they generally fit all the comments above.
My challenge - to find 3 stage illusions that I rate as great performance. It took some searching!
Morettis sword box, because after 30 years it still baffles me, and because the strangeness of the performers is practically an artform in itself:
Copperfield's Origami box, because the visual illusion is beautiful, and the presentation is flawless (warning: 80’s hairstyle ahead…):
It’s cheesy, for sure, but if you’re going to do cheese, you may as well do it to perfection.
Pendragons' Metamorphosis, because it is the ultimate example of doing something as well as it can possibly be done:
They are my three. I would have liked to include Copperfield's Flying, which is probably my all-time favourite illusion on camera, but it's nowhere near as impressive live, so I reluctantly left it out.
Hope these goes some way towards ameliorating the disappointment of my previous post.
I was. This was a very elaborate, but obvious, magic trick. Compared to the other video of the Russian juggler performing 7 clubs and 9 rings (https://youtu.be/5Lv3giOaNjg), this unicycle magic trick was really disappointing.
I'm 100% with you on the Morettis.
The Pendragons' version of Metamorphosis is impressive for it's speed - although watching them perform now feels a bit weird given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pendragons#Arrest_of_Jonathan
I'd put Richiardi's version of the buzzsaw illusion in my top 3.
I can't find a good video of it (the only version I can find is poorly cut video of his son performing it, which is missing most of the original audio and has had an annoying heartbeat dubbed over the top of it) but it's hideously plausible version of the sawing in half, with blood and guts everywhere.
I seem to remember it was always the last trick in the show, and he made a point of not restoring the girl at the end. She'd be propped up on the front of the stage, dripping blood while the audience filed out.
Talking of buzzsaw illusions, Penn and Teller do a nice "accidental" take on it
Does Barry and Stuarts "rabbit from a hat" count as a stage illusion?
And to lighten the mood after all that. Have some Doug Henning at his "happy hippy" Finest. His motorcycle vanish is just so joyful and bouncy!
You have some darkness in you, LP!
Yes, the Pendragons are no more, which is sad - they were a formidable team.
Richiardi (the father) died in 1937 - I've not seen any film of him. Richiardi Jr. is a good pick, though - he is definitely not boring/cheesy.
In 2012 "The Illusionists" was here in Adelaide and the motorcycle trick was one of Brett Daniels' showpieces. Unfortunately at one performance, when the cage was hoisted and the bike was about to disappear, the rider gunned the throttle as usual, only this time he also dropped the clutch by mistake. The Harley (yes, a real Harley) shot out from under him, off the end of the platform and plummeted several metres to the stage instead of disappearing. Whoops!
I believe Richiardi Jr took on his fathers act - so the presentation is essentially the same. I think I read that he took over mid tour when Richiardi senior was killed in a car accident.
I saw some clips of The Illusionists a few months back, and it looked like everything that disappoints me about theatrical magic performances (and comedy magicians) from what I can tell - that motorbike incident would have made the show!
I didn't see it myself, but a non-magician friend saw it and enjoyed it.
It changes performers as necessary, so I guess the quality would vary. It has had some good names though - Luis de Matos, Kevin James, Dan Sperry etc.
It's a smart piece of producing, though. They sold extremely well here, and is now up to it's third or fourth version, touring world-wide.
So successful that it's inspired the "Supernaturalists" Chris Angle spin off... which when viewed through the lens of thejerx appears to be a wonderful slow motion car crash.
Yes, it will be interesting to see if that goes anywhere. I suspect the 'escapologist in hospital' is to generate publicity, though.
How does Chris Angel actually have a following? - I tried to watch Mindfreak when it first came out, and just couldn't put up with him for more than 5 minutes.
I liked the last one, the other two are impressive, but a bit slow for my taste.... Since I know I am going to be 'tricked', why squeeze out the thing that is probably easy for you?
For this I much more like fellow-countryman Hans Klok ;)
The illusions might not be very original, but his speed makes you loose track!
Its iconic! So iconic that it became the theme of a well known commercial. (Wherever Hans goes there is wind)
View older threads
Subscribe to Small Talk via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post
Green Eggs reports