Small Talk

Please log in or sign up to join in the discussion.

Search messages

Viewing all threads involving Cedric Lackpot

View older threads

Sorry this is my second thread in 24 hours, but I have a question. Can I bounce juggle with tennis balls? I currently use hackey sacks to juggle, and they work really well. Of course, they don't bounce, so I use tennis balls for bounce juggling. I learned 3 ball force bounce, but is it possible to do 4+ balls force bounce with tennis balls? The reason I say force bounce is because they do not bounce high enough for lift bounce.

# by JackJuggles,

Your final sentence answers your own question.

# by The Void, Parent

Anything is possible if you try hard enough!

(except for 16 ball juggling... Lets not lie to ourselves)

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

You can bounce juggle with tennis balls in the same way that you can juggle with haggises, both are possible but they are essentially curiosities :-

https://www.youtube.com/v/c5w9pfnbS8E

It's actually pretty good that you have learned to force bounce with tennis balls. Now get yourself something better and it'll all seem so much easier and you will open up a vast range of other stuff which is pretty much impossible with tennis balls.

If you can afford them get some silicone bounce balls. If. They're bloody expensive.

If you can't afford sillies then try some of the mid-range substitutes made with non-silicone compounds such as Oddballs Hi-Bounce or the ones from Play.

And if that's still too much then use what the pros did waaaay back in the day and get yourself a set of lacrosse balls.

Whichever you choose, try to find a hard, solid, and most importantly glassy flat surface to play on.

Good luck!

# by Cedric Lackpot, Parent

I second the lacrosse balls. Silicones are clearly better but the price is just ridiculous.

# by ejwysz, Parent

The "limits" of juggling ability. What are they? I'm talking the 4-Minute mile here.

I've seen this debated about in reference to juggling before, and thought I'd bring it up on the Edge.

What are the absolute limits of technical juggling ability? Or are there possibly none? Is there a maximum amount of objects that a human being can possibly flash, or qualify?

A member of the juggling club I go to told me that the human brain can only perceive 7 (plus or minus two) objects in motion at a time. He went on to say that while jugglers may currently qualify 10 or even 11 balls, their brains can't fully understand what's going on, and juggling ability actually can't go much farther than it currently has. I found that exceedingly interesting, even though I - if only out of hope and love of juggling - disagree with it.

What do you think?

# by ejwysz,

It's probably true that the brain can only perceive 7 objects *consciously*, but with training most of what you're doing when juggling becomes subconscious. Even when just walking in a crowded street your brain is subconsciously perceiving and processing probably hundreds or thousands of things at once. The limits don't come from the brain, but the physical limits of the body. Some work has been done on this by Jack Kalvan, although I don't fully agree with the methods or the results.

http://www.juggling.org/papers/OJ/
http://www.juggling.org/papers/limits/

From experience I can say that the physical difficulty increases exponentially. The next number always requires greater height and speed, but at the same time more accuracy and more weight in the hands at the start. I believe a 14 ball flash is doable, but I don't think we'll see anyone doing 15. I think that long runs of 11 is doable also.

# by peterbone, Parent

Why not 15? Alex is young, so he must have reached 13 in a relatively short time. With 10 years more training at this pace, he could be at a level that makes 15 within reach? Or do you think the best age to flash high numbers is early 20s?

Also, I don't know so many people who work dedicated on their numbers. Out of so many jugglers, so few seem to care after 7 balls. If there would ever be a culture shift where more jugglers decided to dedicate all their time to flashing 15 balls, or even if we just wait another 100 years which gives time for plenty of other jugglers to rise, would there not inevitably be a lucky shot at some point?

All that being said, my experience with numbers juggling does not even come close to yours...

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

Alex was juggling for several years before he became more involved with the juggling community. I don't think that numbers juggling is something that only people in their early 20s can push the limits of (or I hope not). I think you underestimate the difficulty of increasing the number. It would be like asking if a sprinter can run the 100m in under 9 seconds. The difference is just over half a second, but to achieve that would require much more power. I think that a 15 ball flash would be even less likely.

# by peterbone, Parent

Peter, your 11 ball flash with a pirouette is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. After seeing you push forward the "edge" of juggling, I have to say I'm surprised at your cynicism.

What if Gatto had shifted gears, and for years dedicated his practice to high numbers with beanbags? Do you think he never would have nailed 15?

# by ejwysz, Parent

The 11 ball flash with a pirouette is not much harder than an 11 ball flash. I collect 10 and then just spin under the last one. I'd say that it's easier than 13 catches with 11. I do believe that we're still a long way off the limits of numbers juggling, but I also believe that 15 beanbags will never be flashed no matter who it is. Gatto would have the same chance as anyone else under the same conditions in my opinion.

Hearing you mention Albert Lucas has made me want to clarify something. I don't think that 15 beanbags will ever be flashed from the hands. Juggling records set using a holster for the launch don't count in my opinion, but the official rules do say that you can use them currently. I'm almost certain that Albert has flashed 14 rings with a holster. My statement doesn't apply to rings either, which seem to become easier than balls at the higher numbers.

# by peterbone, Parent

Ah, yeah, that changes the game too...

Are you even able to launch 8 balls with decent height and accuracy from one hand? The grip must be terrible....

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

Yes, a have an 8 ball grip, but never really tested it with high throws at speed. I hold 6 in zig-zag and 2 on top, holding the back top one down with my thumb.

# by peterbone, Parent

I watched Anthony Gatto in 2000 breaking records and such (and later on video). 12 rings looked trivial.

However, as soon as he tried 7 rings in one hand, it looked waaaaay beyond his abilities. It wasn't just the grip, or not having holsters, as he would pass the last few rings over to the launching hand from the other hand. The height and speed needed for the 7 rings in one hand is right at the very limits of human capabilities. From my own (limited) experience, and from watching others, the extra pattern height needed for higher numbers increases way more quickly with rings than with beanbags.

So with holsters, 7 rings from one hand seems more than possible. 8 seems less probable. I'd put the cap there at 14 rings.

Next consideration:

Balls don't have handles, so if they are in a holster, or stuck with velcro, they have to be big enough to grab cleanly without looking. This is super easy with rings, as the whole thing is a handle, and also easier with clubs, as it is half handle.

BUT when you catch, balls also don't have handles, nor do they have holes. Rings can easily fall down over your arms, leaving the hand to catch the next ring unimpeded. Clubs can also be tucked under arms, or generally clamped against the body (see latest Willy Colombaino 9 club video). But once a ball is caught, it's just taking up space in the hand.

So no matter if you can launch 8 balls from a hand (for 15) you have to also catch 8 balls in one hand, or at least 7.5 balls per hand. David Ferman is already struggling to catch all 10 balls at the end of his world record run, and even using his arms and leaning back, only gathers 9.

If you have a ball big enough to be suitable for a holster, it's then too big to catch at the end. The way to get a record is to do more throws, and get the record without a clean finish (like David did with 10 balls). But for 15 balls, with balls you can launch and catch 5 in per hand, that means 5 more balls in a holster, which then means you have to do 20 throws in a clean enough pattern, then catch the next 10 balls clean, and let the last 5 hit the floor AFTER you've already caught those first 10 balls clean.

Anyway, this is a long way of saying I don't think any new high numbers record with balls will be set with holsters of any kind, and also kinda why I don't think 15 balls will ever be flashed by baseline humans we have in the world today. Not unless juggling becomes as prestigious as the 100m sprint, or some other crazy hypothetical.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

The obvious conclusion is that eventually all the juggling records will be set by people with high end prosthetic arms and a dedicated pair of juggling hands. With the appropriate gear they could even read a book while doing it.

That would be an act I'd watch.

# by emilyw, Parent

Perhaps not holsters, but a ball launcher, that allows you to catch the ball first and then throw it up into the pattern.. Can be done with tiny balls, allows for a clean start, who knows what the future might bring us!

Thanks for pointing out the Willy vid, I hadn't seen it yet! Interesting catch indeed ;)

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

I saw some videos of Ty Tojo working on 9 and Dick Franco would throw one high for him to start the pattern.

# by ejwysz, Parent

Assuming the launch is not a problem, what would you think about finishing a flash not by gathering balls in your hands but catching & placing them in a kangaroo pouch similar to doing a pull down with rings?

# by Orinoco, Parent

Bullshit.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

I'd think the same that I think about using a holster for the launch. It shouldn't count as a pure flash.

# by peterbone, Parent

IANANJ, but pull downs require more control than a simple catch. Letting balls bounce off your hands into a sack requires less control so Luke is spot on with his answer.

# by Mike Armstrong, Parent

For "Letting balls bounce off your hands" I would certainly agree, but that's not what I said.

I tried this for a few minutes last night at TWJC & found it considerably harder than just catching the balls normally. I had a waist height table in front of me, I considered a successful 'putdown' to have occurred if I felt the table with my fingertips when placing each individual ball, & all the balls remained on the table where I put them, ie if I had dropped or thrown the balls at the table they would have rolled off or to the edge. It took me several attempts to complete a successful putdown with 5 but didn't take me long to be able to do it regularly. The urge to throw the ball down early to make the next catch is really high & difficult to overcome. I found I had to juggle considerably higher than I normally do to give myself time to make the placement. 6 took much longer, usually my 6 ball fountain is only marginally higher than my 5 ball cascade, so the adjustment needed was even greater. I lost interest before I could solidify a 6 ball putdown or try 7.

It won't catch on because it looks crap (unless you can build a stacked pyramid or something), is harder to do & because only the juggler can feel if they've done it right cannot be independently verified.

# by Orinoco, Parent

I never knew Anthony worked on that. He never got a 7 in one hand flash when you watched? To play devil's advocate, I'd say working with smaller diameter rings for a shorter pattern height might help... And that Anthony juggled for many years after that, who knows if that was something he was just first trying.

Ferman is using relatively huge balls for that number, and I applaud him for it. But I don't think they'd HAVE to be big if you designed the perfect holster.

So 15 balls... What if someone grabs and launches the last two balls of the 15 from holsters, and to collect places the first two caught back in the holsters before catching the rest? Would this officially be a valid 15 ball flash? The time and accuracy required to put them back in place in my opinion would make it real to me.

Also, I've been thinking a lot about the 14 ball flash... Would flashing 12 synchronous and then exchanging 2 balls in (2x,2x) below it be easier than the standard flash of 14? I feel like if someone did this they might get criticism, but I would personally count it.

# by ejwysz, Parent

"Also, I've been thinking a lot about the 14 ball flash... Would flashing 12 synchronous and then exchanging 2 balls in (2x,2x) below it be easier than the standard flash of 14? I feel like if someone did this they might get criticism, but I would personally count it."

I've read and heard soooo many ideas like this about flashing high numbers. I don't think anyone who hasn't tried 11 or more balls really understands just how fast and physical it is. You have NO TIME to do any of these things. Also your brain and hands only have the capability of doing ONE thing. As in, you can't do up and down motions, then side to side motions, then catch with your hands facing inwards, then turn them all upwards again to catch the rest of the balls. If this was in any way easier than a 14 ball fountain/wimpy pattern, it would also be a standard way for jugglers to flash 8, 10 and 12 balls for the first time. But it isn't, for good reasons.

As an experiment, try your above idea, or any other idea but with 6 balls. But do it sitting under a table. Suddenly how much faster is your flash? How much less time do you have for any of these tricks?

When you get to 12, 13 and 14 balls, the underside of the table is now built out of physical laws and concepts such as gravity, inertia, time and total possible energy expenditure of a closed system.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Another way of looking at it is to use siteswaps, the 12 ball pattern you suggest is (e,e)(e,e)(e,e)(e,e)(e,e)(2x,2x). So to start with you've got to learn to do 10 throws of 14 balls.

# by Orinoco, Parent

Here's an interesting video of 9 large balls with 4 starting and ending in a holster:
https://www.youtube.com/v/R8iJ3HisE_Q

Here's a longer run of 9 starting with 4 in the holster and ending with 7 on the ground:
https://www.youtube.com/v/9q3pvJudUNQ

# by Scott Seltzer, Parent

That second video isn't a longer run. After he throws the second to last ball, he only makes 8 clean catches. The first video is more successful.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

I really do think they count. It just seems like the logical progression when you reach that technical level.

Like: "I only have 5 fingers, but I have gotten so good at juggling that now I require apparati just to allow my physical body to do this."

There is no shame in that. Yes, you can put 1 between your legs for 11, and I've even seen Junming Lin hold two in his teeth, but where does it end? I would never say anyone's 11 or 12 ring flash didn't count because of a holster. In fact, I find the need for a holster amazing.

# by ejwysz, Parent

A holster undoubtedly makes it easier. Apart from avoiding the problem of grip, it also greatly reduces weight in the hands for the first throws. A flash consists or the launch and the collect. Anything that aids in either of those phases and is not part of the body or the props should not be counted as a pure flash in my opinion. Working out how to launch and collect high numbers is part of the challenge. It would be like a high jumper deciding that he's reached his limit and saying that he now needs some kind of spring to take it to the next level.

# by peterbone, Parent

I see where you're coming from, but is there anywhere you draw the line in that respect? Catching them with the feet, cradling them in the arms, catching one in the mouth?

In the end, I still think that if you release all of them from your hands, and catch all of them with your hands(provided none drop) it is valid. I would rather see that than someone trying to make a net with their arms and knees to catch balls.

# by ejwysz, Parent

If you can do it naked.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Uncomfortable memories of your first "11 ball flash" video.

# by peterbone, Parent

That wasn't me.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Sorry, I was sure it was you for some reason. There can't be too many numbers jugglers who don't mind getting naked in public (thinking of the Finland EJC games now).

# by peterbone, Parent

Lots of people remember me doing things that no longer exist in my brain, so it wouldn't have surprised me if you'd found evidence (though most of those forgotten things happened in Renegade shows twelve to fifteen years ago).

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Unfortunate wording perhaps. My first thought was 'there certainly can!'.

# by barnesy, Parent

Whoa, I was almost sure that was you too!

# by ejwysz, Parent

hahaha! The one thing better than an 11 ball flash is a naked 11 ball flash!

Yes Luke, I also have the Finland EJC memory though. If you ever attempt 12 on camera again, consider doing it naked ;)

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

> It would be like a high jumper deciding that he's reached his limit and saying that he now needs some kind of spring to take it to the next level.

That would be a pole vaulter would it not?

# by Cedric Lackpot, Parent

Exactly. As long as they make it a separate discipline with it's own rules then it's fine. If it wasn't separate then it would be unfair on the athletes not using poles and pure high jump would eventually no longer exist.

# by peterbone, Parent

I think this is something that could easily be added to the Juggling World Records page on Wikipedia. Most records have videos, so you could just look at the top end records for rings and clubs to see if holsters or other non-juggler's-own-body assistance is used for launching. There is already a clubs/sticks distinction in place for 9 clubs.

And there shouldn't be a category for any records with holsters or nets for catching and holding props at the end. I still think the Tim Nolan 11 ball bounce record is completely farcical, due to each "catch" being a mere touch to each ball before they all went fucking everywhere. By every definition of juggling records I'd ever write, that wouldn't count at all. But when I set up that page on Wikipedia I just went with the sources and rules already in place, and the bounce page seemed like the authority on the matter, so yeah.

I'm just saying that if holsters attached to the body are allowed for catching balls after they have touched the hands, why not something attached to the floor? Like, you know, a carpet? If this was the case, I've flashed 12 balls LOADS of times.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

I think I'd only allow the carpet if your feet were attached to the floor.

# by Little Paul, Parent

I do think 15 balls will one day be done. After 14 is done (Albert Lucas is lying IMO), 15 will be the next new frontier. Pressure will be on! I think this would be easier with rings, but I am only speculating.

And I agree with you, Daniel. I feel like the reason for people not caring after 7 is because most people able to do such things are professional jugglers, most of whom probably find really high numbers a waste of practical practice time. Would they ever put 11+ objects in a performance? I've never seen it.

But yes. This is one of the things that makes me wish juggling was "bi". Then maybe we would have already seen 15 or 16 objects.

# by ejwysz, Parent

***"big"

# by ejwysz, Parent

Both Gatto and Ignatov (oh, and Gerasimov, without holsters!) all have performed 11 ring flashes.

And it's not so many, but Gerasimov and Columbaioni perform 8 club flashes. So performers are interested!

I believe Albert Lucas showed a video of a 14 ring flash at this years JJF. He also tried to do it publicly for a TV show, which he probably would not do if he hasn't done it before! http://juggle.wikia.com/wiki/Albert_Lucas

# by Brook Roberts, Parent

Yeah, I've been thinking about that too... But than again, hardly any pro ball jugglers perform with their tiny saggy bags which would be recommended for flashing 11, while every pro ring juggler (and club juggler) practises and performs with the same kind of ring that would be required to break a record..

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

I seem to remember Albert Lucas was using specially made titanium rings for his record attempts because they're lighter and more stable than standard rings.

Of course, that memory is from ejc 2000 so shouldn't be trusted...

# by Little Paul, Parent

I remember hearing that too.

# by ejwysz, Parent

I was also at Abert Lucas's pre non-record attempt presentation at EJC 2000 and agree anything said there shouldn't be trusted. The worst abuse of science was the statement that by giving the juggling rings an aerofoil profile gave them more lift.

But for titanium juggling rings to be as light as plastic ones they would need to be 0.3mm thick* (about as thick as 3 pieces of paper) which would slice your fingers off (also titanium isn't very elastic and would deform from being dropped (like an aluminium spinning plate)).

[assuming density of titanium 4.5g/cc, ring dia 32cm, plastic ring weight 130g]

# by Mïark, Parent

I think that's a bit exaggerated - although I don't have the exact density of the plastic used for rings, nor do I have the exact dimensions of a ring handy to calculate it.

Density of titanium ~4.5g/cc
Density of plastic ~1 g/cc

Therefore thickness of a solid ring would be about 1/4.5 the thickness.

Solid plastic rings tend to be between 3mm and 5mm thick, therefore our titanium ring is now going to be about 1mm thick.
Of course this can easily be made thicker by:
1) making the ring thinner cut out a larger diameter circle.
2) making the ring hollow
3) making the ring heavier
4) thickening the edges (think I-girder, such that the bits which make contact with hands are thicker than those that don't).

The aerofoil story does sound a little suspect, but I'm not going to rule it out entirely. While rings are affected by aerodynamics such that the top of a fountain pattern can be much wider than the base, I can't think of any way in which a wing shape can help... anyone else got any ideas?

# by ^Tom_, Parent

Albert's titanium rings have holes cut out all the way around to reduce weight. He also wears gloves while using them. Remember also that he's using a holster, which I think holds 6 rings, so there's not much weight in the hands at the start. Increasing the weight of the rings slightly could enable you to throw them higher since the inertia can overcome air resistance more (think about throwing a table tennis ball vs a golf ball).

# by peterbone, Parent

Ah, there's the answer.

# by ejwysz, Parent

Yep. I've definitely thought about this. Which made me think they might be some sort of alloy, or even be hollow. But then again, who would have the money to design that, especially for what would be likely such a tiny performance increase.

# by ejwysz, Parent

I don't believe Lucas is lying about flashing 14 rings, only that he got it on video. Now he's stuck trying to get it on video again, and can't, so it's going to come back and bite him. I managed just one 12 ball flash in my life, so I know the frustrating feeling of not having recorded your best.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

I've considered this before. I'm procrastinating, so time for some wildly inaccurate number crunching.

Throw height will be a limitation, which would be determined by force on a ball. This paper found that the highest force of an underarm throw of the Aligarh University cricket team was 4936 N. This is likely to be a huge overestimation for juggling, but as we are going for an absolute upper limit for numbers juggling, this will do.

Mass of the prop will be a limit, and a lighter ball will be able to go higher. The lightest ball that The Bag Lady makes is 58 g. A force of 4936 N on 58 g leads to an acceleration of 85 km/s^2. If accelerated through 30 cm, this leads to a launch velocity of 160 m/s (which leads to the ball being airborne for 32.6 s (holy shit)).

With an acceleration of 160 m/s, you could throw a ball 133 times per second (heh), meaning that the upper limit for ball juggling would be 4330 balls.

I reckon that might be a slight overestimation though...

# by Chris, Parent

I think you're failing to take several things into account. The weight of the arm is the main one, which is many times heavier than a ball. This is why simply reducing ball weight will only help to a point. It will also greatly reduce throw accuracy. Air resistance also has a greater affect on a lighter ball.

# by peterbone, Parent

*pssst* none of that is supposed to be taken seriously

# by Chris, Parent

Also, I don't see how you get 133 throws per second? You refer to 160 m/s as acceleration when you said previously that it's the launch velocity.

# by peterbone, Parent

I think there is a difference between a cricket throw where you have several seconds to contemplate and build up to the throw,and juggling where you have a split second to decelerate the ball from almost the speed you launched it with and then throw it again.

# by Mïark, Parent

Regarding a limit to perceiving objects I don't think this needs to be considered, partly because of the reasons Peter states but also because I don't think you need to. When I juggle 7 balls I just try to line the balls up so the next ball follows (or improves upon) the trajectory of the one before, so I'm only ever thinking about two lines (one coming into each hand) rather than x number of props.

# by Orinoco, Parent

You may or may not know that you can double click on a message to mark it as read/unread. I've known since the beginning that this breaks double clicking to select a word, but I've just put up with it.

This evening though I've had a play & come up with a system that toggles the read status using a long click/tap which I'd like to use instead of the double click.

I've made up this test page with 6 different messages set to toggle at different time intervals. Please have a play with toggling messages, try clicking & dragging & double clicking to select text, click the links etc.

What's your preferred setting? Any other thoughts let me know.

  • 0.25 seconds
  • 0.5 seconds
  • 0.75 seconds
  • 1.0 seconds
  • 1.25 seconds
  • 1.5 seconds
  • None of the above leave the double click action alone


Personally I'd be happy with 0.5 or 0.75 seconds, but would like to know what others think.

#newfeature

This is a competition thread which ran from 8th Apr 2015 to 15th Apr 2015. View results.

# by Orinoco,

Tried the test page, I like the feel of held clicks much better than double clicks. All hail the the God Emperor.

# by Mike Moore, Parent

I use and like double click to MaR/U, would both options be independently opt-in/out-able?

# by ^Tom_, Parent

Ideally not, I'd much rather run one system to keep the code as lean as possible. However, this is certainly not out of the question hence this thread to get more feedback.

# by Orinoco, Parent

what about mobile? I couldn't tell the difference between the test messages with an iPad.

# by david, Parent

How do you mean? The only difference between the messages is the length of time required to activate the toggle (which toggles the background colour between grey & green the same as on Small talk). Are you saying that you can't tell the difference between the first one that changes after 0.25 seconds & the last one that changes after 1.5 seconds? Or are the messages not toggling at all on the iPad?

# by Orinoco, Parent

They stay all grey no matter how I touch.

# by david, Parent

Fwiw, neither double nor long click methods work on my phone (chrome, Android KitKat).

# by ^Tom_, Parent

On my phone, double tap zooms the screen to the size of the element I've tapped, and I wouldn't want anything to override that behaviour as it's useful.

# by Little Paul, Parent

Ditto and ditto. And the long press is essential for both scrolling and right clicking, so I'm glad that doesn't work either.

# by ^Tom_, Parent

Long pressing is how to select text on my touch screen devices. Please don't fuck that up. And the double-click to resize and zoom is also great, so don't break that either. Thanks!

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Interesting, well if double clicking is not presently broken then your phones are overriding the behaviour so nothing to worry about.

This is going to be an interesting one to fix.

# by Orinoco, Parent

I find it very hard to keep my mouse perfectly still immediately after clicking. Therefore even the 0.25 one is hard to trigger for me...


Double click worked fine.. If you are going to change, definitely 0.25!

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

Seriously? I did have a comedy 60 second option which I had no problem activating. Are you using a mouse, trackpad or touchscreen?

# by Orinoco, Parent

Normal mouse. The trick seems to be that I have to rest my mouse on the trigger area before I go and click, then it is not so hard. However, most of the time my mouse is just somewhere on the screen, and I click as soon as I reach the button, a behaviour I've trained since the day I started using computers, to get efficient at clicking buttons...

When I play with it and don't make too much of an effort, at least 1 out of 4 times I don't get the thing to work. Knowing that I need to be very still helped me with it, the first time I tried (before my post) I was very confused because I did not understand why it wasn't working... :/

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

While you are at it, can you move the "mark thread as read" somehow so it doesn't come up in the same place as "mark as read"? I didn't know about the double click option (how would I except by accidentally discovering it?) and I kept accidentally clicking "mark thread as read" in the first post of a thread instead of "mark as read". It very much annoyed me.

# by seveirein, Parent

Any suggestion of where to move it to?

# by Orinoco, Parent

I actually just found out about the double click thing yesterday - selecting text has never caused issue with me before.

So... I say either keep it the same or do a very short time period. .5 or .75 like you suggested seems fine.

# by ejwysz, Parent

I've always used the double click to mark posts as read/unread as it's so quick. The 0.75 version is too long for me so I'd say 0.25 (by preference) or 0.5.

# by Lorri, Parent

Voted for something or other; would rather have voted for "don't even think about trying to do two things with one method".

The Edge is fairly profligate with screen space, so even a one character post occupies quite a large box - put a square box within it (so it's a nice big target) on the right hand side, containing a tick or a cross which toggles between mark as read/unread on a single click, and you should be able to solve all the problems with ambiguous controls, and with uncooperative tablet and smartphone OSes.

# by Cedric Lackpot, Parent

As far as I'm aware I'm only trying to do one thing with one method. Unless you meant it the other way around, in which case I'm not, I originally intended to replace the double click functionality with the long click functionality. Or I suppose you could be referring to the overlap between Edge functions & OS functions.

It has quickly become apparent that every option is going to be broken for someone.

Oh well, I see another bloody set of options in the near future!

I originally felt nauseous at the thought of a big button in each post, I think that would ruin the feel of Small talk, but if I'm going to be adding options anyway it won't be a problem.

# by Orinoco, Parent

0.25s is good.  0.5s is perhaps better.  Anything over 0.5s is too long IMO.

# by Danny Colyer, Parent

This poll has now ended. The results are:

  1. 0.25 seconds (4 votes)
  2. 0.5 seconds (6 votes)
  3. 0.75 seconds (2 votes)
  4. 1.0 seconds (0 votes)
  5. 1.25 seconds (0 votes)
  6. 1.5 seconds (0 votes)
  7. None of the above leave the double click action alone (3 votes)

# by Marvin, Parent

I went to check the original post in this thread to see what the question these results were the answer to, but now it only says:

This is a competition thread which ran from 8th Apr 2015 to 15th Apr 2015. View results.

It might be better if the original post was preserved, I think there originally was a question.

# by Mïark, Parent

Yes. This is what we call a "bug".

It has happened to every competition so far on the live site but never seems to happen on the dev site annoyingly...

# by Orinoco, Parent

FEMALE NUMBERS JUGGLING WORLD RECORDS?

Okay, so I was looking through old posts here and found the list of the 31 people who for sure have flashed 11 balls. There are NO women on the list. Same for the 12 people I can list who have either claimed or videoed themselves qualifying 10. The Wikipedia list of juggling world records for balls, rings, and clubs also contain no women listings.*

Obviously less women juggle, but seeing that no women on the list for flashing 11 really surprised me. What about flashing 10? Trixie did that, right?

The point is... Many sports and physical activities (running, shotput, etc) have separate records for women competitors. Has anyone ever considered trying to compile some for numbers juggling?



*[Granted, they pretty much only contain Anthony Gatto and Alex Barron. (plus 1 record from each Thomas Dietz and Albert Lucas)]

# by ejwysz,

In was Jenny Jaeger who performed a ten ball flash. Sue Kirby could run nine balls. Francoise Rochais can run 7 batons and flash 8 batons. Sergie Ignatov has a female student who can run 7 clubs and 9 hoops. I believe there's a Ukrainian gal who can also run nine hoops. Nikolai Gerasimov's sister performs a perfect 7 club flash and can probably run it. I know of at least a couple of Russian women who can flash 7 clubs. Delaney Bayles can qualify 8 balls well. Frida Brinkman can bounce juggle 9 balls well.
David Cain

# by DavidCain, Parent

Add Olga Galchenko to the 7 club flash list.
The Ukrainian gal you are talking about is Alexandra Soboleva.

Oh and this girl might go on to break some records.. I can't figure out why but in my memory it said somewhere that she was 8 years old at the time of filming.. There are more recent clips of her too...
https://www.youtube.com/v/1_k9mzQTmY4

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

it said somewhere that she was 8 years old

That would be in the title sir.

# by Norbi, Parent

ah haha, I don't know Japanese but I probably translated that when I saw it first ;)

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

And David, thank you again for your awesome insight. I think we might have a start here. I volunteer to compile the female juggling world records list myself, and you already have been an immense help.

# by ejwysz, Parent

Make a Wikipedia page. That's what I did when I was disappointed with the then-current system of tracking world records. Pretty soon other people began contributing to the Juggling World Records page on Wikipedia, and after about a year I didn't need to put more work into it. The built in version control is also a handy way to have at least some kind of view into the timeline of how the individual records change over time too, though it is far from perfect.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

I was wondering who put that up there; Back before I quit there was no such thing. Anyway, I've started to compile a bare-bones list which I think I'll put up here for last minute input before I Wiki it. Cheers.

# by ejwysz, Parent

I forgot to add Valerie Shugay, who performs a nine ring flash in her act.

# by DavidCain, Parent

Digging through each records history isn't straight forward, as people are more interested in recording who holds the record now than "who used to hold it" - best I can do is http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.juggling.org/records/records.html and a bit of tedious wikipedia page history digging.

I gave up on the whole tedious process of digging before I could find any details of female holders of *solo* records, but they've been involved in various passing records over the years.

For example, the records for club passing were held by teams featuring women between 1997 and 2006. (Heather Hackett-Brinegar and later Olga Galchenko) The records for ring passing unsurprisingly involve Kati Ylä-Hokkala.

# by Little Paul, Parent

Didn't Heather Marriot have some pretty mind-boggling passing records with her brother Darren in the noughties?

# by Cedric Lackpot, Parent

According to juggle wiki, Heather and Darin Marriott, husband and wife used to have the 9-12 club passing records. These records are currently pretty safely Austrian.

# by ^Tom_, Parent

I see passing world records (usually passing with a man who is related (marriage or blood) to them), but what about solo stuff?

Personally, I think a whole new and separate list is in order. I'd be interested to see it. I even hope that such a list would inspire more females to juggle.

# by ejwysz, Parent

Personally, I would not find it very inspiring to find that people expect women to not perform as well as men... Or why else would we need separate lists?

# by Maria, Parent

^ this. Women are perfectly capable of equaling men in juggling feats, they don't need to be segregated.

This reminds me of Morgan Freeman's opinion of black history month, which suggests that 'black history' is not the same as regular history. Here he is giving an interviewer a bit of stick:

https://youtube.com/v/I3cGfrExozQ

# by Orinoco, Parent

If women had an unfair advantage to some sport, I'd like to have a special category for men too. Just like I like to compare myself to people of my culture (nationality), age group, friends....

Now with juggling the male advantage might not be as obvious as with some more physical sports, but it is very clear that men are more likely to juggle and that alone is a disadvantage to the average juggling woman.

If women are indeed perfectly capable of equalling men in juggling, as Orinoco suggests, why did they not already do it? I don't know if it is a physical shortcoming or a mental one or a socially constructed effect, but all of those will make it harder for the average woman to succeed in (sports) juggling!

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

What makes you think they haven't? I believe it was Jenny Jaeger who used to regularly perform 10 balls in the early 1900s until her father forbid her to continue practicing the trick because she was spending so much time maintaining the skill level. The 'regularly perform' bit is the important part, this has yet to be equaled by any man.

http://ezine.juggle.org/2013/08/05/10-female-juggling-stars-of-the-past/
http://ezine.juggle.org/2015/04/02/11-more-female-juggling-stars-of-the-past/

# by Orinoco, Parent

I am happy there are so many successful exceptions from the norm! Yet the original topic of no women among 31 11 ball flashers is still valid...

Rather than "stopping to talk about it" as Freeman suggests, I personally prefer to become aware of my expectations, prejudices, generalisations and discriminations, and become aware of how they influence me.

Sorry if I seem a bit aggressive in this opinion, I've once dated a radical feminist for a year and it had an interesting effect on my opinions of these kind of things... ;)

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

In which case I hope you are aware of the, "exceptions from the norm" bit!

# by Orinoco, Parent

Ability and willingness to learn inevitably lead up to reassessing every single person and situation uniquely. Reducing people to their visible characteristics leads to first impressions which I try and overwrite with every new bits of information.
It is not just to treat people solely on my impression of them, nor it is just to do the opposite and pretend I don't know anything about them. Since the right answer lies at an unknown point in the middle, I might not always notice the exceptions from the norm as much as I wish I did, but I surely am aware of their existence :).

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

I was specifically referring to your use of the phrase, "exception to the norm", do you not see that this implies that your default position is that men are better than women? Why not start from a blank slate?

# by Orinoco, Parent

Yep, gender influences my expectation of skill level when I am introduced to somebody new. Just like I am also influenced by: who introduces them to me, the seriousness in their voice when they say "I am a juggler", the location where we meet, the hippy rating of their hair... That is how first impressions work!

The other alternative, a blank slate or trying to not have any expectations, is unfair too in my opinion. From the moment I have the impression that my conversation partner is a juggler, I will act on that. Topic of conversation might be about conventions, siteswaps, or learning the cascade, depending on my impression. Starting with the general topics, and getting more specific as my (and their) impression gets more accurate.
But if I were truly to give them a blank slate, would it be fair to assume that they enjoy talking about juggling? Would it be fair to even assume that they know my language? At an EJC in France I definitely have different assumptions on what language people might speak, and therefore make another approach to a stranger than I would at a BJC.

When I walk on the street, strangers pass by all the time and I wont take the effort to say hello to each individual (that would be awkward...). However, if I run into someone who has all the characteristics of being very likely to be into the kind of juggling I am (for example, young people carrying mini hoops), I'll be sure to approach him/her!

My behaviour is ultimately depended on my impressions and expectations of people. As soon as I have heard of someone, or seen someone, there is no way back to a blank slate. I won't pretend that gender will not be a part of this impression, though I believe that for me it is a relatively unimportant one.
It is impossible, and in my opinion unfair, to try and treat male and female jugglers perfectly equal, as long as I am convinced that there are more male jugglers, and more male juggling record breakers.

Sexism might do more harm than good in our society, but getting rid of it completely is an awful alternative.

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

I think we should give Jenny Jaeger the benefit of the doubt, given that she regularly performed and advertised juggling ten, who are we to say she didn't privately flash 11 and felt it was not worth mentioning. btw she has a nice, active facebook page with no login required.

https://www.facebook.com/JennyJaegerJongleuse

# by david, Parent

Alexander Jaegers page about Jenny is wonderful, I've been following it for two years!

It is a bit ironic, that Alexander originally burned all of Jenny's juggling equipment (at her request), and now runs the best juggling historical facebook page on the web!

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

I really do believe she could have easily flashed 11. I don't know what kind of balls she used, but I even could see her getting 12 up there.

So I'm making this list, but I'm having trouble finding video of Jaeger. Is anyone aware of one? My ball records for females on this list are pretty bare so far. Even my best videoed 7 ball run is only 31 seconds.

# by ejwysz, Parent

Jenny Jaeger video
http://juggling.tv/1517
David Cain

# by DavidCain, Parent

The fact that there are no female 11 ball flashes doesn't mean anything because of the cultural influences that could be (and in my opinion are) causing it. It would be just as valid to say that Indian people are less able to juggle high numbers because there are none on the list, despite their large population (proportionally at least 5 should be on the list).

# by peterbone, Parent

Yep, agreed!

I definitely think that juggling, because of cultural influences, is harder for Indian people than for e.g. westerners. National records are therefore interesting lists. We actually have a Dutch one: http://www.simonacampo.nl/nederlandserecords.html

So I'd argue for creating records list for any group of people, country, gender etc... But of course the big problem is: when you create a separate record list for women, the assumption automatically is that the other list is for men...

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

Well, Frank Le Dent did regularly perform 11 balls for several years prior to Jenny Jaeger flashing 10 in her act regularly. Read the following article I wrote for lots more info.
http://ezine.juggle.org/2015/01/09/frank-le-dent-the-almost-forgotten-juggling-legend/
David Cain

# by DavidCain, Parent

Thanks for the correction, haven't read that one yet!

# by Orinoco, Parent

I wouldn't call the smaller likelihood of women juggling a disadvantage, but it obviously makes one expect more records by males.

Though I am pretty sure that men, having naturally stronger muscles and wider shoulders, are at an advantage.

# by trebuchet, Parent

And this sort of thing is precisely why I wish I'd recorded the OldSkool prep conversations.

Cindy Marvell went on about this (in the context of her arguments with Jason Garfield about the WJF "womens division" being an afterthought which sends the signal that women can't possibly be expected to take part in the "main event") - I say "went on" I mean "talked eloquently at great length"

I can't remember if it came up in the show, but it deffo came up in the prep.

# by Little Paul, Parent

Alas no, it didn't come up in the show, and Cindy mentioned the fact on FB a few days later, and I instantly regretted not having steered the conversation that way - it would've been a properly meaty bit of discussion. Would that the rest of us were as sharp as she is.

# by Cedric Lackpot, Parent

Oh Jesus. I hardly even know how to respond...

As I stated earlier, pretty much every quantifiable sport will have two sets of lists - one for men, and one for women. This says nothing about women being 'inferior', or anything at all negative. It's just that physically, men's bodies are built differently than women's. It is almost certain that no woman will ever hold the 100m dash record, and that's fine! There are whole rankings of records for women in that area.

I think that doing this for juggling will be a huge step, for many reasons. If this doesn't inspire you, oh well. I bet many women would disagree with you. I'm all for equality, but you're doing it wrong.

# by ejwysz, Parent

What if there were no WNBA, and women who wanted to play basketball professionally had to try to get on teams with men? I think that would be the opposite of inspiring, and would make many who would have tried not bother. Or worse, fail.

That's why the WNBA was created. It's progress. FOR equality.

# by ejwysz, Parent

pretty much every quantifiable sport will have two sets of lists - one for men, and one for women.

Maybe this is the difference as juggling is much more than a sport, though the juggling records side of it is perhaps similar to sports records.

I don't have a copy to hand, but in a book like the Guinness Book of Records do all the records have a female category?

# by Mïark, Parent

For sports with separate records for men and women they do. Or did. I've not looked at it for about a decade.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Have you considered that segregation of gender in sport could be holding women back from their full potential because it reinforces the bias.

Here's a relevant link I just found that appears to be backed up by science.
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/natural-muscular-potential-women/

# by peterbone, Parent

For sure, it probably is. But while there are still substantial social factors having a negative influence on women's performance, having non-segregated competitions and records can end up reinforcing the impression that women don't belong in the sport at all.

You know how five balls suddenly became easy, when everyone could do it? Or how once one person ran a four minute mile, lots more people suddenly did? Similarly, now that you can go and watch women playing professional football, there are a lot of little girls thinking "maybe this is a thing that I could do". But none of the current professional women football players would be anywhere in a mixed league - and at the moment the limiting factor is not inherent gender differences but just a laughable lack of institutional support for the women's game.

# by emilyw, Parent

I can see the possibility, but I don't personally think it does. At least not enough to make a difference. I feel the good outweighs any hypothetical detriment.

# by ejwysz, Parent

With Fight Night Combat organizing, I'm always getting as many ideas and recommendations from people, passing them by other groups of people, and trying them out in competitions. Also when I come up with an idea, I'll run it by people before trying it out too.

One idea was for a women only Fight Night at the EJC this year. I wasn't sure if it was a good idea or not, but I didn't feel like doing nothing about the massive imbalance of male to female participation in FNC. There are just 17 women among the 302 players listed: http://fightnightcombat.com/category-gender-option-female.html

Everyone I spoke to about this said a women only Fight Night was a bad idea, which became more obvious as I thought about it more. Way before there is any gender segregation, I'm far more likely to have a separate tournament for young people or short people.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

How about a separate Fight Night for people wearing fancy dress costumes.

# by Mïark, Parent

Only if they play with knives not clubs.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

This should be televised.

# by emilyw, Parent

Haha, short people.. Fair, but it sounds like an evil concept :p

I think you have a good shot at doing a youngster fight night. Little resistance from anyone, and a lot of potential talent!

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

Yep, bias exists and this bias might both be positively and negatively influenced by a separate competition.

To add to the the link you've posted: Something they don't talk about is muscle fiber composition. According to my anatomy teacher, woman build a significantly smaller white to red muscle fiber ratio, which gives them a disadvantage at explosive power but an advantage at endurance.

From personal experience, I am convinced that the girls in my circus school work as hard, if not harder (aerialists...) on their strength. Yet somehow they never ever surpass guys in explosive exercises such as push ups or jumping. This is extra surprising since when you are working with your own body weight, your strength vs weight ratio becomes more advantageous when you are shorter, and girls averagely are shorter...

They sure do get muscular though! :)

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

Climbing is a sport in which women are not far behind men, even in bouldering which requires a lot of explosive strength. Here's Alex Puccio showing up one of the best male climbers in the world recently.
https://www.youtube.com/v/9DBMMLCJ4IA

Competitions are still segregated, but climbing in general is not very competitive and men and women tend to climb together a lot.

# by peterbone, Parent

Blimey, that was impressive! In my climbing days, I climbed with several women who could get up harder climbs than I could. But then climbing better than me wasn't terribly hard - unlike the problem in the video.

It certainly makes me reconsider previous ideas about how much strength is needed for top-end numbers juggling.

# by ChrisD, Parent

Okay, since it looks like my comment kind of started a discussion here I feel like I should elaborate a bit.

First, to be clear: I was only talking about juggling. I see good reasons to have separate lists and competitions for men and women in many (most) sports. And, I did not think that wanting to set up a separate juggling records list for women would somehow imply that anyone think women are inferior in any way... Just that they don't juggle quite as well as men.

Of course men's bodies and women's bodies are built differently. No, no woman is likely to run as fast as the best men in 100m. The question is: Are the diffenencies between men and women affecting the ability to juggle many objects?

Well... I already know that I will never be on the juggling world record lists, because
a) I started juggling at age 30,
b) I have a full-time job (that does not involve juggling), and
c) I'm more interested in practicing passing patterns, nice siteswaps or cool tricks than numbers.

It just never occured to me that I'd have any reason to add
d) Because I'm a woman.

If it really is more difficult for women to juggle many objects, then maybe it would make sense to have a separate list. If not, then no.

Also, I agree with Miark that juggling is much more than a sport. I don't get my inspiration from records. I get inspiration from my friends in my juggling club, conventions, juggling videos, shows. There are women in the "Top 40 jugglers of the year". There are women in shows, at conventions and in juggling videos. If I need other female jugglers for inspiration, I have them right there. Usually I don't really care if it's men or women when I see people doing something I'd like to learn, though.

So, for me, personally, a separate list would just say that "It's more difficult for women to become really good at juggling than for men." Maybe that is true, but I'm not convinced. And regardless of if it's true or not, it's not very inspiring. For me.

# by Maria, Parent

:)

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

Keep in mind, everyone, that ALL I intend to do is make a separate numbers juggling world records list. And that's the extent of it. This is a very interesting debate, but I don't want anyone to take my idea the wrong way.

# by ejwysz, Parent

Strange list.
5 balls 1:47? I know over 10 women personally that can do better.
Ok for 5 clubs Joelle is listed but only with 3:25; if I recall correctly her personal record is beyond half an hour.
Also why does this list differentiate between beanbags and balls?

# by Julius, Parent

43 minutes is listed in unverified claims (Notice also Sue Kirby's 45 catches of 9 balls). The problem is finding proof. If you can find a video of a female juggling 5 balls for longer than 1:47 then feel free to update the page.

# by peterbone, Parent

This is one of the obvious problems with making more and more specific lists - unless enough people take it seriously enough to try and set records the records listed tent to be pretty meaningless. Unless you can convince some good female jugglers its worth trying to break the female records they will remain poor.

The records listed on JISCON tend to be ones that people are far more likely to aim to break for the sake of having the record (and probably now that wikipedia has good listing, the ball and ring passing records too).

And I say this as someone who is amused by breaking pointless records on jugglingedge - I just would find it very odd to claim them as world records.

# by Brook Roberts, Parent

Aha! Awesome. This list is clearly not final, for the reason that Brook states; These aren't real world records with the people in the records trying for them, they are just the best someone could find video of on the internet to try and make a "starter" list with.

Thank you, this is an immense help for me. This has a lot that I don't have yet, and I have been doing my own research and have definitely found some that crush these. Together, and eventually with (hopefully?!) the Edge's support, we will soon have a list that will be more obviously viewable, and will encourage some more of the real record attempts to come in.

And that is unusual about the beanbags/balls records. Gatto would be proud.

# by ejwysz, Parent

Don't forget Tongan women doing shower. If I remember correctly, there was a video of a 7 tui tui nut shower and rumors of an 8 nut shower.

# by Scott Seltzer, Parent

#BJC2015 review for Orinoco...

BJC2015
Friday
After a surprisingly relaxing journey (despite seeing 3 near-miss accidents on the motorway due to lane changes) I arrived a little early, in time to spend an hour envelope stuffing making up the arrival packs. Happy to be useful, I did have to wonder why with such a short setup time available on-site (about 3 hours to prep the site and get the doors open) that was being done at the last minute and hadn’t been done a couple of days before… but hey ho!

The evening was spent mostly catching up with old friends, and meeting a few new ones. Drinking beer, chatting, getting people to try balancing a golf ball on their nose You know, the usual. I drank more beer than was possibly sensible, given that the hangover lasted pretty much all day.

Saturday
Woke up late with a mahoosive hangover, which was partially rescued by the tale end of a fried breakfast (all they had left was bacon beans and mushrooms) I wasn’t up to much beyond sitting around watching other people juggle, trying to work out how much of Wes/Tony’s outfits were parody and how much is what they seriously think is everyday wear. We came to the conclusion that they’d been watching goldie looking chain videos.

The 5-ring circus Youth Circus show was a good example of a youth circus show. I like that youth circus exists, and think it fills a very important role in the UK circus scene, but well… I just don’t like kids that much. The clowns had some good bits, and there was some pretty impressive macro/tumbling - but most of the show did nothing for me, so I wandered off to look around the traders.

The traders were in a great room this year, enough space to wander around without falling over anyone, and space to try things out. I got the chance to try out some Freaks Unlimited knives for the first time in about 15 years. I will always have a soft spot for freaks products, although Paul seems to have started putting staples in his fire eating wands. He used to stitch the wicks which seems like a much better way to construct an eating wand to me.

We dodged the raindrops to get our way onto one of the earlier show busses at about 4pm with M, J, Charlie and Alex’s nephew Max for the long drive into sheffield. After much faffing about trying to find an eatery that wasn’t already crammed full of jugglers, we squeezed in to a pizza express and gorged ourselves. Then it was on to the show.

I apologise for not having made any notes about the acts, this is from memory so doesn’t include anyones names incase I cock them up:

Compere - he was fun, although telling a long story before the interval was an odd thing to do. He’d have been better off doing that in his intro, but that’s a minor quibble.
chinese pole and clubs (Great act, could have done with a little more pole and a little less club fondling for me though)
1st female ball juggler (nice routine but a bit droppy, I’d love to see her on a good night)
??? I genuinely can’t remember what act came next, there must have been one though. It was probably a hoop act, there’s always a bloody hoop act.
2nd female ball juggler (wonderful bit of physical comedy, ball juggling and table wrestling, with a nice surprise at the end.)
Diabolo guy closed the first half. He had some really exciting moves. I know "just enough" about diabolo to have some concept of how complex it was, without actually being able to describe that. Also the 2 diabolo combination of norma/vertax on the same string was new to me, and very nice.
** interval ** (I had ice cream)
The second half was entirely Water on Mars. It split the audience. I don’t think I was in quite the right frame of mind, I was tired and still a little hungover so had difficulty giving it the focussed attention it needed. I think if I’d gone to see it as a show (rather than the second half of a show) I’d have enjoyed it more.

The bus ride home involved steve mills wearing a wig, then there was a lot more beer, bed far too late. I don’t remember seeing any of the Renegade.

Sunday
The clocks changed, which screwed up my breakfast plans as everything happened an hour before it should have done. Dalton College catering staff were an hour ahead of me!

The afternoon was the Circus Geeks show, which was frankly awesome. So much fun in that show, and frankly I didn’t realise Arron Sparks could pull faces like that. The highlights for me were the 10 ring passing section, the jugglers lexicon, and Jon Udry’s rant about wanting to be in “The Water Boys” - made more special for me because I was sat across the isle from tony/patrik/wes (or as “Johno” wanted to call them ‘Pesto, Emo and Pee… erm…”)

I skipped the fire show, I have no idea if the alternative games happened but I didn’t see those either. I did show Tiff the golf club trick, and once he got it he showed off by maintaining it long enough to qualify 3 balls under it. Which was just showing off really.

Monday
Another slow start for me. I missed the Toorwood Wheelers show as I was spending a very pleasant 3 hours talking to Steve Mills, Cindy Marvell, Juggly Jane and Suzy Oddball in preparation for the OldSkool Panel. I was genuinely surprised how lovely, thoughtful and talkative they all were. I’d been hesitant about talking to Steve as everyone has been telling me for years that he’s a bit of a handful, but once you get chatting to him and he gets comfortable talking to you he came across as a really sweet guy. Cindy, well - I’m even more in awe of her having talked to her than I was before I met her. My god she’s got a sharp mind on her, and some awesome stories to tell.

Steve and Cindy were defy my “crush” for the week.

Next year, I’ll see if we can get the pre-chat recorded and possibly crowbarred into some form of podcast.

British stage. I didn’t take any notes about this, and as such can only remember 4 acts.
Hillbilly juggler character act (nice club work, but a character act should extend beyond costume/music choice. The juggling/movement just didn’t fit the character at all.)
Diabolo and rabbit “act” (2 minutes of material crammed into 20 minutes, total lack of awareness of the energy they were sucking out of the room. Notable because the comperes basically came out afterwards and pretty much started a show again)
Tom Senior did some awesome bounce juggling, including use of a V shaped surface to bounce off. Afterwards, Ewan pretty much persuaded Tom to go to Broxford as that’s were the gandini cube is currently stored.

The highlight of the show for me was Tom Derrick, doing Ballet with Big Blue Balls. Tom, as ever, hit every single musical cue you could possibly find in the music. I talked to him about it afterwards and he said he had to use a spreadsheet to work out all the throw timings, and then learn it throw by throw to make sure he hit them. Bloody good job Tom. :)

The Old Skool Panel itself went off OK, although was interrupted several times by tannoy announcements. The first couple were annoying trivialities, but the “everybody stop what you’re doing and check your tents now, half of them have blown down” once cleared out 50% of the audience. Luckily we were near the end anyway.

I don’t think the “britovision” game advertised in the program happened, I think everyone was too busy panicking about the site being blown away.

Tuesday
I have no notes about Tuesday at all. The site was still being battered by the wind, more and more tents being destroyed or taken down. An emergency accommodation plan was hastily drawn together (which is something Perth have promised they’ll do in advance - nice to have a disaster plan even better if you never have to use it)

BYJOTY. Mark Watson was great at compering as ever (I’d love to see him do a public show. Rumour has it he’s played the dame in Panto, and personally I’d love to see a Dame compere a BJC public show… I may be on my own with that one) Tiff, Void and Mamph were judging.

The first 6 acts were pretty good, and the audience were in a supportive mood. We did however notice that a lot of them were circomedia students, and none of those students took a bow at the end of their acts. They all finished their routine by walking off through the curtains ignoring the audiences appreciation. I guess "taking applause” is in one of next terms modules.

The 7th act came on and blew them out of the water though. I think his name was Luke something, a few rough edges, but he used the whole space, did some extraordinary juggling, and really got the audience going. He looked like a clear winner, but Eddie Bacon (sp?) was up next and took it up another notch again. Bags of character, great costume/makeup and an all round polished act. Eddie won the audience vote.

I ended up helping out with the "performers buffet” for the BYJOTY entrants afterwards, and it was interesting to watch Luke collar each judge in turn and ask them some really important questions about what he could have done better, taking it all very seriously and really taking notice of the responses. He’s one to keep an eye on I think.

Line dancing happened around me, and then it was fight night. I didn’t see much of fight night, but what I did see was very entertaining.

Wenesday
Again no notes, but looking at the program it was the Youth Cabaret (I think Nigel said that happened, but clashed with the business meeting? Even if it hadn’t clashed I’d probably not have watched it, see my earlier comments about kids) the Business meeting was interesting as usual. Perth sounds *awesome* and I’m already looking at transport/accommodation options. 2017 sounds like it’ll be Devon, or possibly Cornwall, or possibly some combination of teams/venue depending on who gets what sorted when.

I saw some of the games, but spent most of it talking to Suzy Oddball. I could talk to her for ages.

The international show happened (despite rumours that a certain diva kicking up a fuss about the lighting) I didn’t make any notes, but do remember that Wes was well, Wes. Tony and his fishing net routine was a lot of fun (He’s got more moves with those than Nick Gatto ever did) Florent Lestage did his walking stick and club routine, which is *gorgeous* - lovely moves, excellent physical comedy, a great unhinged clown character alternately shouting at everyone and singing to himself to great effect. There were some other acts as well, but again, I didn’t take notes.

That evening, we also got the farewell email/facebook post from Mike Bridge. A lot of tears, hugs and memories were shared.

As soon as I got to bed, by head filled with snot and I came down with the worst bout of manflu I’ve had in a while. Great. Just in time for the 4 hour drive home.

Thursday
We were packed up and off site by 11, the site was supposed to be clear by 12, but from the looks of it when we left there was no way that was going to happen.

Anyway, so there we go. Orin, I hope this review is long enough to make up for you not being able to post one, I've not proof read it, and autocorrect has probably done some awful things along the way, but there you go.

# by Little Paul,

Thanks for that LP. It's a shame not to see anywhere near as many reviews nowadays (for those of us who couldn't get there this time.)
I've not heard about Mike. I'm sadly assuming bad news.

# by Al_Bee, Parent

Not *quite* yet Orin, but it all looks a bit bleak.

And if it turns out to be the ballsiest April Fool in the history of ever, I will personally go round his house, cure him of cancer, kiss him full on the lips for having such monumental brass neck, and then give him cancer again for being such an utter bastard.

# by Cedric Lackpot, Parent

Ah shit. I don't really even know him but I do know that he's a lovely guy. Bugger.

# by Al_Bee, Parent

Just confirmed who Mike Bridge was, I didn't know him personally but have chatted to him & seen him at previous festivals, struck me as a really nice guy. Wishing him my best.

# by Orinoco, Parent

That does very nicely indeed thank you, I really appreciate the effort. Most gutted to have missed: Circus Geeks, Tom Derrick, Florent Lestage & Cindy Marvel I think. I too would also like to see Mark hosting a gala show.

How difficult would it be to record the Old Skool show as a podcast? Many of the stories told have been real gems, it would be great to get them preserved. Or would that spoil the magic of the show a little?

Oh, & what flavour ice cream was it?

# by Orinoco, Parent

I don't have the gear to mic five people unfortunately. I'm also unlikely to run an Old Skool next year. It relies on my ability to find four people who are either already attending, or I can persuade to come without paying travel expenses, and I anticipate that being quite a challenge in Perth.

Naturally that doesn't prevent someone else with a more haggis tinged address book from taking on the Old Skool next year should they wish to.

# by emilyw, Parent

Over the last couple of days, I've been toying with the idea of a Q&A session for Perth - which we may be able to replace the Old Skool with (unless we can find a way to make it happen)

The idea would be for whoever the "special guests" are (eg this year it would probably have been either the water boys or circus geeks) to hang around for an hour in a panel setup similar to the Old Skool, but instead of the questions being driven by the chair - the questions come from the audience.

It would probably need to be negotiated with the performers as part of their contract so that they can make space for it (eg Circus Geeks left the evening of their show as they had another gig, so we'd need to avoid that sort of thing)

But, that said... if the limitations on the Old Skool happening in Perth is knowledge of likely panel members - it might work around that.

# by Little Paul, Parent

Sounds like a good idea! I'll make sure that that is kept in mind when the contracts are drawn up and pass it on to the show organiser.

# by mrawa, Parent

How well it'll work will depend largely on who ends up being booked. It'll still need a chair.

I know this years team are very keen on a "you want $FEATURE? You organise it!" approach, and I'm not *quite* ready to commit to that yet. I'll have a chat to a few more people over the next couple of weeks (and no doubt a long chat with ewano about it in a buttercup field somewhere) and see where it goes.

# by Little Paul, Parent

oOo now I can imagine a feature where every year, somebody different pops up who really wants to interview a person that's inspired them, so you'd get a different interviewer / interviewee pair every time..... Interviewer responsible for persuading interviewee to show up at convention :)

# by emilyw, Parent

Part of the reason I did Old Skool in the first place was that I was interested in experimenting with different formats, not just shows and workshops. So if missing an Old Skool makes some room for other innovative kinds of new stuff that would be extra fantastic.

There are so many people I'd love to see one-on-one interviews with; I went with the panel format because I thought one-on-one with an audience would be a bit too high stress for everyone involved, but there must be a million other interesting things people could do.

# by emilyw, Parent

For a couple of years now, I've toyed with the idea of proposing a buzzcocks-style light hearted quiz show.

On the one hand, I'm sure it could be really funny, though I do think that it's only worth doing properly.

Overlap with the old skool has been a concern, particularly as I'd love to have the teams as new schül vs old skool.

# by ^Tom_, Parent

I reckon a "Would I Lie to Jugglers?" show would be fantastic.

# by Al_Bee, Parent

Just so long as we can still have a mime based guess the juggler, or guess the trick round (or feel the juggler if you're more into they think it's all over).

# by ^Tom_, Parent

It would be much easier to record the pre-show chat, as you can do that with a portable recorder and a couple of mics in the middle of the table. I've got the gear to do that (I <3 my Tascam DR-40) I even had it with me, but didn't think to get it out of the van.

Recording the oldskool panel itself would involve micing everyone on the panel at a minimum (5 mics) and that's a lot to set up given that to date, the old skool hasn't used mics at all. Mixing it down for the podcast would also be more of a pain.

We *may* be able to do something with the DR-40 if the room setup allows us to put it somewhere unobtrusive, but the sound quality isn't going to be great in a live show scenario - and some juggler is going to knock it over when they walk out half way through or something.

I had a dairy milk chocice-on-a-stick thing.

# by Little Paul, Parent

Fab review LP, it seems on Saturday we may have had synchronised hangovers :-) WHY did no-one tell me there were Freaks knives in the traders hall? I thought Freaks had disappeared decades ago....I have a set and they're simply the best knives I've ever juggled; individually weighted, beautifully balanced, I'd recommend them (and have done many times).

# by charlieh, Parent

I think it was butterfingers that were selling them. Paul is still making a small range of freaks products, focussing mainly on fire stuff but he's also still making the knives. http://www.freaksunlimited.com (includes online shop, which curiously seems to be cheaper than the "BJC special price" the stall had them for)

I agree, they're a lovely knife to juggle, and sooooo sparkly!

# by Little Paul, Parent

More BJC 2015 words from Stuart Wetherell.

# by Orinoco, Parent

Jenny Wallenda, materfamilias of The Flying Wallendas, dead at 87.

It looks like she had a rather more conventional passing than too many other members of her family of high-wire daredevils, including her husband Richard, and family member Karl, who both died performing at altitude.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/us/jenny-wallenda-matriarch-of-daredevil-family-dies-at-87.html?rref=us&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&pgtype=article">New York Times article.

# by Cedric Lackpot,

For those not checking eJuggle it looks like there is now a lot more info about the upcoming IJA festival.

Which also marks the start of the much talked about New! Sparkly! IJA website! http://ym.juggle.org

Looks like it is running an off the shelf package from Your Membership which offers a lot of behind the scenes stuff for managing member registrations by the sounds of things but as a user using an up to date browser (completely mangled in O12, I know I can't really complain anymore but if you are going to use an xhtml doctype you should at least *try* to write valid code...) I'm not seeing a great deal of improvement between the old & new site. The instructions for how to log in don't exactly say, "easy to use". It still feels corporate, it's not immediately obvious what the IJA is or does from the first page.

# by Orinoco,

That whole website is one of the most embarrassing clusterfucks I've seen for a while. There are now three (or maybe more?) websites crammed together in the clunkiest way possible.

The main site at http://juggle.org/ is the definition of shabby, and makes dead websites like the Juggling Information Service look modern and uncluttered by comparison.

Then there's the eJuggle subdomain at http://ezine.juggle.org/ which looks better, but still has a mismatch of design elements and shoddily made adverts shoved into the layout without any design knowledge.

The new http://ym.juggle.org/ subdomain is a whole other new thing? I went through the steps to sign in, but I've no idea what this part of the website is for, or what it replaces, or why it exists.

The more links you click, the more depressing the whole site becomes. There's a forum? Well, that link takes you to http://www.juggle.org/drupal/ and tells you "Login - Username is the same as eJuggle" but also says the last post was "By Bob Neuman 10 months 4 days ago".

Someone needs to sit down whoever is in charge of the IJA and give them a good talking to. Or at least swear at them a lot.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Or volunteer to help solve the problems!

# by Mike Moore, Parent

No. The problem isn't lack of volunteers to help contribute to the website. The problem is nobody is in charge, and everyone who volunteers just gloms their new project onto the mass of previous volunteer efforts. Someone needs to be given the power, or take the power, to cut the Gordian knot. They need to do away with all the old cruft and commit to a new system. And then pay a proper designer, and not let non-professional looking stuff be shoved into the sidebars.

But is there any sign that the IJA will ever do this? Nope. Which is why I'm staying well clear of the entire mess.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

I appreciate the sentiment but this is a simplistic response. What exactly is the problem? Luke complains that the IJA websites are all very messy. I completely agree but I think the websites are simply a reflection of what the IJA is doing generally. It is a melting pot of a lot of projects. I've said it several times before but I still don't know what the IJA is really for. There are descriptions & mission statements but they are all a bit vague. To promote juggling? How? To provide regular meetings? How? The only obvious thing you can do on the new website is join the IJA. Why? I can't think of anything that the IJA does that *needs* a membership based organisation to do it.

It's difficult to help when you don't know what you are supposed to be helping with.

As a good example of how to run a 'program' to use IJA parlance take a look at Fight Night Combat. Luke has wanted to raise the profile of one on one combat. To do this he has developed a format for a tournament that is exciting & entertaining to watch for spectators & fun & challenging for competitors. He has produced materials that help others to run their own tournaments. He now maintains an online archive of results & rankings to give competitors something to strive for. You can go to the FNC website & it is immediately clear on the front page what FNC is all about. The online presence is a relatively recent addition to the 'program' added at a point when the popularity of FNC events has grown to warrant it. From the website you can see clear evidence of success: a large list of competitors & their results, lots of photos & videos from tournaments showing lots of people enjoying themselves, & for those of us that have watched/participated in FNC tournaments it is obvious that the level of play has increased in the time that Luke has been promoting FNC tournaments.

Compare this to any of the program pages on the IJA website. What exactly are they doing? Where is the evidence that the money/time being spent on them is making a difference?

Luke is already "promoting juggling" & "providing assistance to jugglers" in a very effective way in my opinion.


Everyone wants to put something online these days, most of the time they screw things up by making things as complicated as possible. If you want to stick something on the web this is a good place to start.

# by Orinoco, Parent

To be fair to the IJA, I started the FNC website as a personal project to help me learn programming and website development. I'm also a bit of a sports and statistics nerd. And I really enjoy playing combat (though I like Team Combat more than one-on-one matches). And organizing stuff at conventions. It's like a perfect zen diagram of stuff that makes me want to put in hundreds of hours of work into it just for fun.

But I'm not sure there's a single person within the IJA who cares that much about the IJA itself, let alone the IJA website. As you said, it's really hard to work out what they do. The only benefit I get from being a member is access to articles and videos on the eJuggle blog. I can understand someone caring about that, but all that takes is a Wordpress blog, at most, and some writers and editors. Certainly not a paid membership organization.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

As you have thrown down the gauntlet, i need to say i am the IJA webmaster and i do care about the website. I hold the bag and the keys for the website and have kept it on the web serving what the IJA desired, as indicated by its boards of directors. juggle.org is a complex website serving many functions and constituencies. ym.juggle.org is a step towards unification, today ym handles member and festival registrations, which required two separate logins in previous years.

The IJA has been a membership organization longer than any of us has been on the internet, and, yes, I care about the IJA and I know there are many others who do as well. It has and does promote juggling. It was the parent of the BJC, EJC, JJF and WJF and many others. It has and does provide a space for those who want to render assistance to fellow jugglers. Some of those have been publishers, the IJA started the hardcopy juggling periodical era and continues as the most comprehensive juggling ezine available today.

You may care more about the FNC than I care about the IJA and its website, it would be hard to test that hypothesis, but I'm pretty sure I've put in more hours and paid more dues than you have. And I'm not the only one or even close to being the most caring IJA member.

I'm confident you were bashing the IJA and not me personally. Thanks for the :)

# by david, Parent

I didn't mean it as a competition, I was just responding to Jon's comments. And I certainly don't mean to target anything I said to you personally, or anyone who volunteers to help the IJA.

The problem isn't with any specific efforts of any one person. Even you seem to admit, how much you can change (or fix) the website is restricted by a board of directors who obviously don't give a shit about the website. If they did, you'd have already taken the original website offline. Because if you are in charge of the new ym subdomain, I know you think that front page is pile of shit in every way. I encourage you to do all you can to delete it from public view as soon as possible, as every day it remains it damages the image of juggling in general, not just the IJA.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

I'm not in charge of ym. I too took up IJA web mastering as a learning experience and it has been a good one. ym is a proprietary SaaS that I have not much more interaction with it than you have. I believe the only thing to learn there is how to deal with a help desk.

I share your disappointment with the esthetics and information content and have expressed that to the ym builders. I don't think I could have done much better, given the box they are in. There is a lot of overhead, simple things require filing request tickets. There is no shell access, no open source, no opportunity for programming at the level it is done here or at the base juggle.org site.

ym promises to automate many of the tedious services surrounding registration of members and festival attendees. It also offers mailing list service, forums and ecommerce. If all this works, I think it will be good for the IJA. In the first four days it seems to be working.

The place to address your suggestions is ijaboard@juggle.org or ijaboardplus@juggle.org. The latter includes me and about a dozen "key" volunteers, the former is just the board itself.

# by david, Parent

Then the whole situation is worse than I could possibly have imagined. Good luck sewing your pigs' ears together!

Also, the place to "address my suggestions" is right here. If the IJA board gave even the tiniest of shits about this, they wouldn't need emails from me or anyone else.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

At least two members of the IJA board care quite a bit about this. I know this having spoken with them and attended the general business meeting.

Insulting the quality of results is one thing, insulting intention is another.

# by Mike Moore, Parent

Okay, so how can we see the intention of the IJA board? Where on the website do we find the intentions of the IJA board? Can you link to a place to read anything like that?

Do you see the problem?

I get the IJA newsletter as PDF! When the first one arrived I thought it must be some kind of mistake. Of course I didn't read it because of the text formatting and layout was too painful to read. But let's check it out now:

It's nine pages long! Two and a half pages are links to eJuggle articles. Another page is the contents, and the message from the Chair is pretty much a recap of the contents. Another is a list of festivals. One and a half are promoting juggling events. Another full page is taken up with asking for funding or volunteers. That leaves a message about insurance issues and a book review. If those last few things had been articles on eJuggle, then all the work put into the newsletter could have gone to something more helpful. You know, like writing more content for eJuggle.

It doesn't matter what the intentions of individual people might be when it comes to insulting the IJA. Scott and David and others are doing a fantastic job with eJuggle, but a few jugglers running a good blog doesn't mean that the core of the organization isn't broken or incompetent.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

http://www.juggle.org/ija/boardminutes/

It's under Members > Business > Board Minutes in the main drop down menu.

# by david, Parent

Ha.

"AMS Report (Mike Sullivan)

Discussion:

Mike says there are some problems with the vendor.

IJA 2015 fest website should be up and operational April 1st 2015

Veronique is waiting for the website to be finished so she can move forward with the 2015 Festival Registration and Promotion

Nathan is organizing a call to clear up festival/website information"

All my worries are laid to rest.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Oh, that doesn't sound like there is much hope at all :(

# by Orinoco, Parent

Nope. I looked on the YM website and couldn't even find pricing information. I already hear alarm bells. I predict that by this time next year the IJA will have a different website infrastructure and membership solution, and a new set of 12-step login instructions.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Festival pricing is on the about festival page and also on the festival pricing page, both accessible through the top menu.

# by david, Parent

I looked on the vendor page for the SaaS called Your Membership: http://www.yourmembership.com/

I couldn't find a price for the software, or the service, or anything else. This is why I think that in 12 months time, when the current contract is up, someone else will look at how much it costs and get a very nasty surprise. And then they'll find a new volunteer to make a new site fom scratch for free and the whole process will repeat again.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Prices probably vary, eg one pdf says $6495 per year while a press release says $295 a month.

But these are last years prices and there is no way of knowing how much any particular client might be paying.

# by Mïark, Parent

Oof. That's about as I expected, but it's still a bit of a punch in the gut that all the money is going into a black box with no open source or other benefits. I hope an extra 10 people are signing up each month to cover it, or that such a website draws in many more festival registrations. That's a reductive way of looking at it, of course, but yet again I'm glad I don't have to try to defend the decision making processes of the IJA board.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

You've probably already realised David that Luke was asking about Your Membership's pricing not the IJA festival.

Ouch, that's a lot of money to spend managing membership subscriptions. I still don't see how any IJA activities need or benefit from a membership subscription model.

Early on in the days of TWJC some of the committee used to spend a lot of time curating data of club members names, addresses, telephone numbers, birth dates etc. We had folders of paperwork including tick sheets showing who had a paid up annual membership & who had attended each week. There was a lot of chasing people throughout the year when their membership was up, we then changed all memberships to expire on the 31st of December to streamline that process (I remember this was the time that we all learned what pro rata meant!), later we dropped annual membership altogether. At some point there was either a change in or at least heightened awareness of data protection law which looked like a nightmare to me so when I became Chair of the club I simply stopped the recording of member details & disposed of old records which pretty much fixed everything.

Removing bureaucracy is a good thing (Although obviously TWJC is somewhat smaller than the IJA).


...& because predictions are fun I'll say that the IJA will be stuck with Your Membership for as long as they are a subscription based organisation because migrating away will be too difficult.

# by Orinoco, Parent

Your prediction is also depressing and swear-worthy.

# by lukeburrage, Parent

I know the EJC started with IJA seed money. The WJF started because Jason Garfield didn't like the way the IJA competitions favour artistic performances over technical juggling, so I suppose you *could* say the IJA gave birth to the WJF, but not necessarily in a good way! The BJC was started to fill the void left by the Covent Garden festival & I see very little resemblance between how the BJC & IJA operate so how exactly do you see the IJA as a parent of the BJC? I know almost nothing about the JJA so would like to know the IJA's hand there too.

I may be skeptical about some of the content of that paragraph (I agree with the IJA's contribution to publishing online & offline) but it's nice to see someone stand up for the IJA & speak passionately & proudly about the organisation for a change. I like the message from the chair articles published in the ezine & I appreciated this brief visit from Dave Pawson.

Please don't take any of this thread personally. I for one am wary of *all* organisations. I'm still waiting for an explanation of some discrepancies in EJA business I asked about last year & I'm waiting for the BJC meeting minutes to find out how far the BJAG has or hasn't come along since the last festival! For your part in the machine I'll repeat that I know the IJA websites are a big mix of systems built up over a long time & I don't envy your task of trying to keep them held together. Unification will be a great improvement, I hope you can encourage the content contributors to use a more concise & less stuffy style going forward!

# by Orinoco, Parent

I wouldn't expect to see any mention of BJAG in the BJC 2015 Business Meeting Minutes. I don't recall seeing any sign of BJAG anywhere at BJC this year, but I may have missed it.

# by Mïark, Parent

Which EJC and how did the IJA help start it? Did it help fund the first EJC in Brighton which had an attendance of 11 jugglers iin 1978 or something else. Genuinely interested (not IJA-bashing) and I can't find any information on EJA website (which is almost as out-dated as the IJA website).

# by Mïark, Parent

It was called "First European IJA Mini-Convention", organised by " IJA member Lynn Thomas"

http://www.juggle.org/festival/IJA-EJC-Brighton.shtml

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

The IJA has done a few projects that make me feel that my $30/year or so is well-spent:

1. Supporting David Cain's articles, which IMO is some of the best-quality juggling information on the web
2. Sponsoring some of the big names to create longish (25 min+) juggling videos
3. Supporting the Youth Juggling Academy

While all of these projects may have been possible individually, I think it's benefitted the content creators and the IJA general membership for this membership-based organization to exist.

# by Mike Moore, Parent

Hopefully Mr Cain will pop up & be willing to share how exactly the IJA have supported his work. A couple of the stars who have made exclusive videos for the IJA are members here but sadly don't use the site regularly so are unlikely to be able to stick their oars in.

If you feel the YJA has been value for money can you tell me what it does/has achieved? My understanding at the moment is that achievement badges are sold to over 18s at a price that subsidises free badges for under 18s, under 18 badge winners also get entered into a bimonthly prize draw. I tried to find some metrics for the program. How many badges are sold vs awarded each month? What badges are being awarded (would give a basic measure of progress in terms of numbers juggling)? Who has won what (in the UK competition winners have to be published)?

I'm aware that I've been saying, "what exactly do the IJA do?" a lot in this thread, but this is because I genuinely don't know. This is a problem. I don't consider myself particularly far off the pulse of the juggling community, & I consider myself pretty good at using the internet. If I'm struggling it means a lot of people aren't bothering.

I've just requested permission to view some of the reports stored on Google Drive mentioned in the board meeting minutes (why aren't they openly accessible?) which sound like they should be able to answer some of my questions.

# by Orinoco, Parent

The information that I read about support is largely from videos endings and Facebook statuses. I find myself on Facebook more than official archives[1] (though I certainly see the value in keeping thorough, up-to-date archives).

Wes and Tony's devilstick video was supported by the IJA:
https://www.youtube.com/v/JNFTNqgcSzs

The rights to Throw Joy were rented to the IJA (Wes posted this somewhere, sorry that I don't remember where) to make viewing free for IJA members. I believe Tony Pezzo's The Third and Eleven Shot had similar agreements, but that's speculation.

I do not have the information you're looking for with the YJA. I would describe it differently, as something along the lines of scouts, but with juggling. There are a little over a dozen American cities with YJA people, and those people have varying degrees of involvement (from Warren Hammond, Becka Smith, and Ellen Winters, who are all very involved, to people I probably haven't heard of who are less involved). Some run consistent juggling sessions, some do school workshops, etc. A little more information can be found here: www.yepjuggling.com (YEP changed its name to YJA a few months ago).

[1] - I did flip through some board minutes a month or so ago, and also wondered why certain parts were not public, without any explanation.

# by Mike Moore, Parent

Oh I know there are a lot of exclusive IJA videos, I want to know exactly what support was offered. Was it financial, or just a distribution channel?

It's just really frustrating that no one seems to know any specifics about anything.

# by Orinoco, Parent

I assume it was financial because:
1 - Wes/Tony/etc really don't seem to need a distribution channel
2 - I was paid to make a two tutorials a couple years ago for the ezine, and I can't see nobody-Mike being paid when Tony/Wes/Nathan are not.

Unfortunately, I'm not particularly close with any of those three, but I'll be seeing (at least) one at a fest this weekend. I don't know about the culture across the pond, but it's kind of taboo here to talk about when money changes hands.

# by Mike Moore, Parent

Oops, I should have mentioned this earlier:

I was thinking about doing a box tutorial series (still planning on doing this eventually...) and a couple memebers of the IJA caught wind of that when I looked to one of their members for critique (as a juggler, not as an IJA representative). They offered to sponsor the series, and to pay some amount in advance if I needed funds to buy recording equipment.

While I didn't need the funds up front, I could see that kind of offer making a project possible where otherwise it would not be, or be lower quality.

...I also need to repriotize my time, and see if that offer's still good.

# by Mike Moore, Parent

That's the sort of thing I'd like to see the IJA being more up front about. All they need to do is say, "We commissioned so & so to make a video, here's what they came up with". I don't think there needs to be a dollar amount published anywhere on the website, but there should be an entry in the publicly accessible annual accounts for the few people that are interested in where their money is going. They are not far of from doing this, for instance you can see in the board minutes the budget for the ezine, & the output of the ezine is obvious to all (well done Scott & the team of content producers). They just need to apply this approach to all IJA projects. We spent money on this, this is what we got out of it.

Wouldn't it be good at the end of each year for there to be an article listing IJA achievements, "This year we commissioned x, y, z videos. We awarded x children with y achievement badges. We bought this for the historical archive. Your donations (any money from membership fees?) provided support for x performers to work with MMCC who taught y kids to put on a show for members of their community..."

There's a taboo over here about talking about pay in the UK too but this does not apply if it is your money that's being spent.

# by Orinoco, Parent

At the risk of getting dragged in to yet another ija thread (soooooo bored with this as it's been 20 years since my first one) I like the idea of an annual achievements statement. Sell success publicly!

"who got paid" is significantly less taboo than "how much did they get paid" on this side of the pond. I don't know what it's like in the states, but presumably it's not too dissimilar?

# by Little Paul, Parent

Welcome aboard! You know you're here because you're really good at these threads!

# by Orinoco, Parent

I think the root of this is that it's a volunteer staff.  Tracking takes time.  Without paid staff, a lot of stuff isn't recorded (or, if it is, it isn't passed along when a volunteer burns out.)  Without tracking, it can't be reported.  Without reporting, noone knows what the hell is going on. 
Kind of a common thing in nonprofits in the US (and, I presume, lots of other places.)

# by Thom!, Parent

I've always read "supported" in this context to mean "commissioned", but to be a little more socially acceptable. More of a "this person wanted to do this thing, and we gave them some money to help" compared against "We got this person to do this thing by paying them".

A (well archived, and organized) list of achievements would be nice. I think that most of that information exists either scattered online, or is talked about in the annual meeting (which I think has a report, but I don't know how comprehensive it is - I haven't been bored in a while).

# by Mike Moore, Parent

Hi. I was away for IJC and then overwhelmed by all the BJC and other posts here so only today braved skimming things over.

Yeah, I am an IJA supporter and I volunteer as editor-in-chief for eJuggle (http://ezine.juggle.org/).

Nearly all of the content on eJuggle is original commissioned pieces. Each month includes about 10 or so text articles, a great new podcast or two, and several tricks of the month videos. We try to have frequent major exclusive videos (by the likes of Wes, Tony, Jay, and others) for members only. See http://ezine.juggle.org/archive/ for a chronological list of all we've done.

There is occasional recycled content that was previously available outside of eJuggle, but was purchased to share with IJA members. Examples would be some of the Wes and Tony videos (though sometimes we get them to create specially made bonus sections exclusively for eJuggle).

Probably my favorite juggling video ever is Wes' HEPTAD which was made specifically for IJA members, but eventually made public for the benefit of all mankind: https://www.youtube.com/v/Q1hwb1h8R5s

We have a very small budget and really only pay token amounts. There really is no way I could afford to pay even minimum wage for all the hours that obviously go into many of these contributors' work. On the other hand, tons of people put videos online for free, right? Here at least we do pay something and we also work to promote the peoples' efforts.

-Scott

# by Scott Seltzer, Parent

If you've been skimming recent posts I'd like to plug this one as worth reading in full! I think doing this would fix a lot of the problems with people's (mine included) perception of the IJA.

# by Orinoco, Parent

I wasn't involved when these decisions were being made, but I'm 99% sure it was financial.
If you're interested in learning more about the IJA's finances, there are reports on the website, as well as on their annual 990 (a form that's federally mandated to make public if you're a nonprofit.)

# by Thom!, Parent

Only appears to have been made publicly available between 2003 & 2009.

# by Orinoco, Parent

That link seems to link to other years as well, including 2014

I didn't drill particularly deeply though as I can't think of anything more boring to do with my lunch break

# by Little Paul, Parent

Sadly I did drill down, the official 990 form only appears on the years I mentioned. The 990 form is not what I call 'accessible'. I see loads of figures that make me ask, "what's that?" a lot. The balance sheets are easier to read, but still, what are the $5k of professional services, $6k travel, $2k communications-other?

Nice to see the IRS is similar to HMRC in seemingly going out of their way to make things as difficult as possible for the people they serve though. Glad we're not the only ones.

# by Orinoco, Parent

Ahh, right. With you.

As far as I can tell, 990 forms are published centrally, and are available from various sites (they don't have to be published directly by the organisation that filed them)

However all the sites I found that claimed to show you 990 forms were either so badly designed they were impossible to navigate, or seemed to want me to pay money to see the details.

Which seems wonderfully capitalist to me

# by Little Paul, Parent

Thanks for your interest. I think this is the first time there has been more than one comment per year on these pages.

I just now cleaned up the sub-menus so it is easier to go from any year to any other. I confirm that only 2003-2009 form 990s are available at this time. Empty form 990s and instructions are available at irs.gov

Keep juggling :)

# by david, Parent

The currently active programs are listed at http://www.juggle.org/ija/programs/ which is available as Programs on the main menu. I am in particular awe of the first one listed, I encourage you all to donate.

# by david, Parent

The first one, the MMCC, looks very worthwhile, but the next, the IJA Regionals, the website gives the impression that they last happened in 2011.

# by Mïark, Parent

mea culpa The more recent history is in the ezine

http://ezine.juggle.org/?s=regional+competition&cat=all

# by david, Parent

Thank you for your interestinge critique. This is not a good day for swearing. Happy Easter.

# by david, Parent

It's never not a good day for the IJA to do something that makes me feel like swearing :)

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Trying to be fair to the IJA they have said that the main site & the ezine will be merged into the new site, so eventually there will only be one website. Also the forum you mention has been mothballed (admittedly not clearly). They are using a number of different CMS' combined with static content which is a mistake that has built up over a long time & is going to make managing content very difficult.

To stop being fair to the IJA, I have no idea how so little progress has been made over such a long a time. Even copying & pasting old content into a new format wouldn't take more than a couple of months, *if* there was a clear end goal. At the moment I don't think there is any such an end goal.

# by Orinoco, Parent

Someone needs to sit down whoever is in charge of the IJA and give them a good talking to. Or at least swear at them a lot.

Paging Dave Davies, paging Dave Davies ...

# by Cedric Lackpot, Parent

Arf. This dialogue popped after *almost ten seconds* of intensive browsing :-

http://i.imgur.com/bJs2rTR.png?1

# by Cedric Lackpot, Parent

Sorry, I'm not going to be able to fix that.

# by Orinoco, Parent

I loved the IJA bashing already in the .rec days.. Not much changed :p

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

Makes me wonder if there is also EJA bashing in the US crowded forums, jugglingRock perhaps?

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

Not that I've seen...a very rare "pah, hippies" or something along the lines, but I think I've heard more complaints about that stuff from Europeans who were at the events.

The juggling subreddit also seems North America-focussed, and I haven't seen any EJA bashing (or IJA bashing, really) there.

# by Mike Moore, Parent

Do they even know about the EJA (or the IJA)?

# by Mïark, Parent

Jugglingrock, yes. The juggling subreddit has a higher percentage of new jugglers, I'd say, and would guess that ~70 % of them know about the EJC, and maybe 20 % about the EJA.

# by Mike Moore, Parent

That percentage is probably fairly close to how most jugglers know about the "governing" body of any juggling convention/association. I honestly thought a couple of years ago that the IJA dispanded on accounts of the state of the website (it looks* like a 90's site). Most people seem to think that conventions just happen...


*well still kinda does...

# by mrawa, Parent

Do you stretch before you juggle?

What are some stretches you do before/during a practice? Or do you not bother?

What about warming up? Do you work up to your harder tricks in practice by doing easier ones first, or do you just go for it?

I hurt my neck practicing recently so I thought I'd ask these questions.

# by ejwysz,

Some people will tell you to stretch before practice and some people will tell you not to. There's no scientific evidence to suggest that stretching before practice can help to prevent injury, and it may actually make injury more likely, so I don't bother. If I do stretching for flexibility I do it at other times. Warming up is a good idea and I should probably do it more. Normally I'll start with a longish run of a medium number of objects and throw high and low. I'll often start with some balancing as well to find my center. Other than that I try not to have the same routine per session and try to mix it up as much as possible so that I'm not training on auto-pilot.

# by peterbone, Parent

Stretching and warmup for injury prevention?

It's been a while since I last talked to physiomonkey/monkeyjuggler about this[1], but I doubt the situation has changed all that much in the last couple of years. I can't be bothered to go rummaging in medical journals to check though. As I understand it the situation is:

There is no evidence in the published medical literature that shows a positive effect on injury prevention from pre-exercise warmups or stretching.

However, there is some evidence that stretching is generally good for injury prevention, but it doesn't matter if you do it before or after exercise, or the next day. If you include stretching in your general fitness regime there are benefits.

Warmups are good for getting your mind into the right place to perform the exercise you're about to do, and for waking yourself up getting in the mood or whatever. Beyond that you're expending energy on your warmup which could be better spent on the exercise you're working on.

I would suggest that if you've hurt your neck while practising, you might want to work out what you did that caused the injury and spend time addressing that rather than warming up :) eg, how's your posture?


[1] I'm not a qualified medical professional, but he is and he's done far more reading on this particular issue than I ever will so I'm willing to trust his opinion. I hope I'm not misrepresenting it. I thought he was on The Edge, but I can't find him in the users list.

I used to stretch/warmup before running, or before a gym session. Since talking to physiomonkey about it I stopped bothering. I now do some generaly stretching a couple of times a week instead. My injury rate hasn't changed all that much. On a cold day at the gym, I'll do some cardio to get my heart rate up and kick my poor circulation into life, but that's more about being comfortable than it is about injury prevention :)

# by Little Paul, Parent

If the ambient temperature is cold it definitely helps to warm up, both for performance and for injury avoidance. Warming up will raise your muscle temperature which will increase the nerve conduction velocity which will let you move faster. It will also raise your skin temperature which will make your skin more flexible and less likely to be damaged by collision with a club or ring (probably doesn't matter with beanbags). Glenn Gould (pianist) was known to soak his hands in warm water before performing.

# by david, Parent

It also helps to warm up your props eg clubs and rings as they are less elastic when cold and hurt more if they hit you or you catch them badly.

# by Mïark, Parent

I can definitely see that, and definitely appreciate you adding some scientific insight. I agree. Even the effect of the cold on your hands alone can be huge. If I'm outside in anywhere near sub-zero temperatures, my hands can hardly feel to catch at all.

# by ejwysz, Parent

I'm also not qualified ... to do bugger all really. Money back if not completely satisfied!

IIRC Al's original standpoint that warm ups *for injury prevention* was mostly unsubstantiated, but IIRC there has since been some evidence to support the idea, and perhaps his position has warmed a little. What does seem to be true (and I think LP has mostly already covered this) is that warming up (aka exercise) in general will make you fitter and will therefore protect you somewhat against injury; it just won't make a lot of difference in the specific instance, and indeed there is a little evidence to suggest that it may even make you slightly more vulnerable.

Please notice that I've qualified my statements about evidence with deliberately vague modifiers - scientifically, it's a debate that has yet to be concluded. Go ahead and cherry pick the evidence if you wish; reality will not follow suit.

TL;DR Warm up, go on, it's good for you! Just don't go thinking it'll make any immediate difference to your likelihood of injury, that's not really where the benefits lie.

# by Cedric Lackpot, Parent

I do not do designated stretches before juggling.

As a warm-up, I go through patterns with more movement than my usual ones. First, I juggle with my hands high, low, and outside (in rapid combination, not focussing on one, then moving to another). Then, I cycle through backcrosses to behind the head (bx bx bx for many reps, bx bx bth for many reps, bx bth bth for many reps, bth bth bth for many reps). This helps me get my joints and muscles warm (especially neck!), and has the benefit of getting me to practise things I want to be very solid every practise.

I have two types of hard tricks: precision-demanding (e.g. blind behind the head) and handspeed/physically fatiguing (e.g. multiple orbits, attempts at 9b flashes). I find warming up helps my performance on both of these fronts.

One strange thing that I've noticed is that my 7b is most solid if I've done some rock climbing about 3-4 hours prior, and eaten a huge meal ~3 hours prior.

# by Mike Moore, Parent

That's what I think I hurt myself on... BTH! I really think I jerk my neck too hard the side when I'm looking either way. I can see the merits of just doing this trick blind(Like how Gustaf does it). What do you think?

And that's interesting about the 7 ball pattern. I don't rock climb, but I honestly will try to time that meal out in the future. On a related note, I hate practicing on an empty stomach.

# by ejwysz, Parent

I found that I learned bth at a slow enough rate for my neck to strengthen at I went. At this point, my neck is very strong, and when someone recorded me doing an endruance run of over 3 minutes at IJA 2013, it didn't particularly hurt.

I LOVE blind behind the head. I practise for quite a while, and finally got a qualify of it a couple years ago...the day before Gustaf put out Sorry won't cut it. For those under 24 hours, I thought I was pretty hot stuff!

I've gotten a little better at it:

https://www.youtube.com/v/jtuoMLWOWv8

(I'm pretty sure it's a tad easier in reverse cascade than cascade)

# by Mike Moore, Parent

DAMN you have skills! Do you have any tips? My BTH (while looking!) is going very slowly. I can now flash it out of a cascade, loop one ball back there continuously, and do maybe 3-4 right hand bths consecutively. That's my skillset for that trick. And like you, I want it to be something that I am super solid at.

I feel like one of my biggest problems when I try to run it is that I tend to throw them over my head instead of behind it. Too high, basically.

# by ejwysz, Parent

Thanks!

Ah, there is one thing that most people skip that I found extremely helpful: doing a 423, with the 3 bth. Doing an equivalent of juggler's tennis is a okay step, but often leads toward a big torso turn, which isn't very useful for running it.

I wouldn't worry about throwing too high at the beginning. As you get more comfortable with the pattern, your corrections will be smaller, and you'll be able to do it lower because of that.

# by Mike Moore, Parent

Only 6 attendees at TWJC last night. It seems we are busy every other week so sods law we should be busy next week when we cant use the hall and some of us are at BJC.

Laurence did his best run of 5 clubs, 40 throws. I managed at last to do the golf club balance with a spin on the top one. I have decided its only possible to do this trick successfully indoors. And Archie is making progress with 5 balls.

# by Topper,

Are you going to be at BJC? If so, please bring your golf clubs! I want to compare and contrast :)

I think the spin can be done outdoors, with the right gaff. Unfortunately that's the hardest version to make (bug arguably the easiest to do)

# by Little Paul, Parent

I will have golf clubs at BJC. Also some straws and eggs for balancing egg on straw on nose, this can be messy.
It looks like Jon wont be attending as he is very poorly with man flu virus.

# by Topper, Parent

Yay to golf clubs!
Boo to man flu :(

# by Little Paul, Parent

Indeed. I've basically pushed myself way beyond my limits over the past few months & finally broke. Suffering from exhaustion & a viral chest infection which has completely wiped me out :( I desperately want to go to see everyone but I don't want to be patient zero of an epidemic & there's no way I'd ever be able to hold back from all the partying which I really need to avoid for my own good.

The BJC is the most important thing in my year & I'm truly devastated to miss it. Have a good one all.

# by Orinoco, Parent

What? So I wont meet my GodEmperor in person?

# by Daniel Simu, Parent

BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it...

Oh, wait, I mean almost the exact opposite of that :P

# by Little Paul, Parent

If you are going to rub it in at least have the decency to do it with several thousand words!

# by Orinoco, Parent

BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... v BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... v BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... v BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... v BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... v BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it... BJC was rubbish. You'd have hated it...

# by Cedric Lackpot, Parent

That's better.

# by Orinoco, Parent

I'll post something full and wordy when I'm I've my BJC manflu (thanks Ewan) but to keep you going until then, here's a video of wes/tony/patrick

https://youtube.com/v/dvuxYxmlfrc

At least, that's what they looked like to me

# by Little Paul, Parent

Get well soon, Mr GodEmperorSir!

# by The Void, Parent

What's your favourite genus of penguin?

  1. Aptenodytes
  2. Eudyptes
  3. Eudyptula
  4. Megadyptes
  5. Pygoscelis
  6. Spheniscus


This is a competition thread which ran from 8th Mar 2015 to 14th Mar 2015. View results.

# by Orinoco,

As you may have guessed we now have a #NewFeature that allows you to post simple polls. To start a poll create a new thread, select "Set this thread as a competition" & set the competition type to "Poll". Options are specified as list items in your post which are entered in different ways depending on which composition method you have selected.

Plain text

You can create your list of options manually:

<ol>
<li>option 1</li>
<li>option 2</li>
<li>option 3</li>
</ol>

or

<ul>
<li>option 1</li>
<li>option 2</li>
<li>option 3</li>
</ul>

Or click the <ol> or <ul> tags in the list of allowed tags which will walk you through creating a list one option at a time.


WYSIWYG

Type in your first option on a new line, click the "Insert ordered list" or "Insert unordered list" button (5th & 6th buttons), press enter, type your next option, press enter etc..


Markdown

Create an ordered list by starting each line with a number followed by a . eg.

1. option 1
2. option 2
3. option 3

...or create an unordered list starting each line with either a *, + or - eg:

* option 1
* option 2
* option 3


Cast your vote by clicking your preferred option, a green tick will show you which option you have voted for. You can change your vote at any time while the poll is open.

At the end of the poll's duration period Marvin will tot up the votes & post the results.

# by Orinoco, Parent

How do you retract your vote if you later decide you don't want to vote for any of the choices on offer?

# by Mïark, Parent

Chocolate

# by The Void, Parent

Yes, but which colour?

# by Little Paul, Parent

White.

# by The Void, Parent

What about Pinguinus, the genus that gave us the penguin name‽


Typical Southern bias, only list the southern penguins - no mention of the northern ones.

# by Mïark, Parent

Whatever type the little blue penguin is

# by Kelhoon, Parent

Blue/Little/Fairy Penguin are Eudyptula

# by Mïark, Parent

A couple of things :-

* Votes should be toggleable, so I can rescind a vote as well as reposition it. In the picture I have voted for Eudyptula and can no longer vote for nothing.
* The "Select option to vote, Previous unread, Next unread" is bloody confusing - Previous unread and Next unread are not types of penguin!

Screenshot :-

http://imgur.com/7kuC1na

Also, why don't Imgur links embed?

# by Cedric Lackpot, Parent

Also, why don't Imgur links embed?

Because goatse?

just a thought...

# by emilyw, Parent

It's a shame img tags aren't in the list of html allowed. Otherwise we could just use http://www.palmnet.me.uk/minipolls

# by Little Paul, Parent

Adding image tags around a url for those who want them is considerably cleaner & easier than extracting a url & fixing mangled image tags from user input!

# by Orinoco, Parent

1. Votes are now toggleable.
2. Yeah, that shouldn't happen. Now sorted.

That imgur link is to a page rather than an image. Images will embed if you use the direct link (2nd option down in the list of embed codes).

http://i.imgur.com/7kuC1na.png

# by Orinoco, Parent

I've heard they taste very fishy but have not cooked one myself so I couldn't state a preference.
Have been meaning to ask my game man about squirrels as I prefer to cook non indigenous or pest species such as muntjack deer or rabbits.

# by Monte, Parent

roast loin of squirrel with toasted nuts and stolen garden fruit.

mmMMmmmm

# by emilyw, Parent

This poll has now ended. The results are:

  1. Aptenodytes (3 votes)
  2. Eudyptes (1 vote)
  3. Eudyptula (2 votes)
  4. Megadyptes (1 vote)
  5. Pygoscelis (3 votes)
  6. Spheniscus (3 votes)

# by Marvin, Parent

Nice graph but you deleted the OP again...

# by Orinoco, Parent

Why doesn't the original poll get replaces by the results?

# by lukeburrage, Parent

Because that would not show up as a new post? Thereby not bringing the close/results to people's attention.
Of course, a first-post-replacement as well as a new results post would work fine, IMO.

# by The Void, Parent

Mostly wot Void said, but also I thought it would help the thread tell a story: question is asked first, people discuss the question, results are posted, then people discuss results.

Also if the reader didn't participate in the poll while it was active having the results in a separate post (which more often than not will be off the screen) gives the reader the chance to guess at the results or still make a choice without being influenced by the results. There is a link straight from the OP to the results for those that don't want to read through the thread.

# by Orinoco, Parent

View older threads

Subscribe to Small Talk via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post