From the corner booth....

Naturally, I had to include my comments afterwards.

From: "Frank Hsieh" <director@beantownswing.com>
Subject: RE: your soapbox regarding Scout House contra aerials
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 11:14 AM
To: "'DanceNet Editor'" <dancenet@havetodance.com>

Just as I thought - too chicken to post my responses on your website (N.B. another personal attack). You can easily cut out the personal attacks if that was why you didn't print it. (Editor's note: See item 1 below)

OK, you want some intellectual rebuttals? You got it.

If your major point was that "someone else had figured out that it was not in their best interest to allow or encourage lifts and aerials at a dance held in a third party's building," are you saying that it is OK then to do it in their own building? (Editor's note: See item 2 below)

One of my points has been that although I agree that certain aerials may not be appropriate in certain crowded social dance floor conditions, putting a blanket ban on all aerials is not the answer. I am one of those parents you described that has a kid who is often mad at me for not letting him do certain "fun" things. However, I don't totally restrict his fun activities just because I am afraid he will get hurt, like the boy in The Secret Garden who was never allowed out of his room. If there is something that he wants to do that is somewhat dangerous, like climbing a tree (he is 3), instead of saying flatly "you can't climb trees," I let him try it while I am standing there spotting him and showing him the proper techniques. For some activities he learns it fast and gains a lot of confidence, and for others he realizes it's too "scary" (i.e. dangerous) and backs off, having learned his limits in a safe environment. This is the same reason we hold these aerials workshops - let them learn these moves in a safe environment and educate them on when it's appropriate to do them. Putting a blanket ban on aerials is just being lazy and not putting in the effort to educate dancers. (Editor's note: See item 3 below) Plus, if you're going to ban aerials, it just looks stupid if the ban is not enforced. I've been to Roger's dance where I've seen "aerials" performed on the social dance floor (e.g. by that tall scruffy guy with the beret) and nobody did anything about it. Why don't you define what you mean by "aerials" so that we are all on the same page? (Editor's note: See Item 4 below)

Other points from my last e-mail:

1. Making a claim (e.g. the Scout House management agrees with you) without knowing the facts makes you lose credibility on anything else you write. (Editor's note: See item 5 below)
2. Yes, for many of us, there is indeed something better than just "getting to hold the girl's hand." I described two examples. (Editor's note: See item 6 below)

   Editor's Note: this was from the first note Frank sent to me at 2:30 am, a few hours after I updated the website.

   Not everyone goes out to social dance for the same reasons as you, which apparently is to cop a feel or something. I don't get off on holding the girl's hand. If I did, my wife probably wouldn't let me go out anymore. For me, certain music inspires me to move my body in certain ways, and my idea of social dancing is to communicate my movements to my partner so that we can do them together. If the music is hot and I and/or my partner feel like leaving our feet, so be it - it doesn't detract from my social dancing goal at all. I don't care about getting to know my partner better. As long as they can dance well and we click on the dance floor, that's good enough for me.

-Frank

Dear Frank,

And here I thought my last Soapbox wasn't worth your time to respond...

Here are my responses to the comments above:

Item #1: Your previous notes that say I dance so I could "cop a feel" [from the follower] and that I "needed to get laid" were incredibly rude and childish. These kinds of comments (and name-calling) merely turn off the reader and close their ears against anything else you have to say. The comments also make you sound immature. I thought I was doing you a favor by not reprinting those comments because they were just a distraction from the topic at hand. Your important point was that the Scout House was not stopping you from allowing aerials and that's what I posted.

"...your 'wife' seems like a controlling bitch."

(FYI: This was in reference to my comment that if I were married, I wouldn't be allowed near a computer at 2:30 am)
If you're talking about a physical wife, I'm not married. Guess I'm not the only one who made assumptions, eh? If you're talking about a symbolic or metaphysical one, however, I don't understand your comment.

Item #2: "If your major point was that "someone else had figured out that it was not in their best interest to allow or encourage lifts and aerials at a dance held in a third party's building," are you saying that it is OK then to do it in their own building?

Actually, yes. I phrased that sentence that way on purpose. If *you* owned the building and someone got hurt, then they'd sue *you*. I was wondering if you were going to pick up on that point. I don't care if *you* lose the building and that you lose all *your* life savings and end up paying someone else's expenses for the rest of their lives. I'd rather no one get hurt at all, but if it's going to happen, I'd rather the person responsible be the one to pay. I don't want anyone else not involved to have to suffer if someone got hurt at your venue; for example, I don't want the four Contra dances to lose their home at the Scout House if someone got hurt at your swing dance and sued everyone. I certainly don't want to lose a place for dancing for that stupid reason.

However, right now, if someone else gets hurt doing aerials at your dances, you *and* the Scout House can be sued for damages, not to mention the instructors. Several other dance venues using the Scout House would be at risk for losing their home, even if they didn't allow aerials at their venues. I don't think that's fair. Do you? Of course, if the Scout House banned the aerials and you allowed them anyway, they might get sued anyway but then the Scout House could sue *you* for allowing aerials.

Actual history: There used to be several dance venues going on at the Arlington Town Hall. One particular dance venue was well known for using lit candles on the dance floor and jumping over them while dancing. This ended up getting all the dancing venues kicked out (though I think they now allow local residents to rent the hall for a dance). A good swing dance venue lost a very good location due to one group not caring about the effects of their actions on everyone else. Perhaps they felt that the risk to everyone losing the location was worth doing whatever they wanted to?

Item #3: " One of my points has been that although I agree that certain aerials may not be appropriate in certain crowded social dance floor conditions, putting a ...snip... educate them on when it's appropriate to do them. Putting a blanket ban on aerials is just being lazy and not putting in the effort to educate dancers. "

If you want to take personal risks and assume all the responsibility, then go ahead. If you want to take risks with other people's health and livelihood, then that's wrong. If you want to be personally responsible and you do it in a private venue, go ahead: take 100% of the responsibility. I don't think it's fair to do it in a public venue like the Scout House. Furthermore, if you don't think the risks are too high, why did you get insurance for your band activities? Before your first Scout House dance, you told me (in an email that I no longer have) that you had a million dollar policy so you felt you were covered in case anyone got hurt.

Item #4: " Plus, if you're going to ban aerials, it just looks stupid if the ban is not enforced. I've been to Roger's dance where I've ... ...snip... nobody did anything about it. Why don't you define what you mean by "aerials" so that we are all on the same page?"

Ah! I know that guy. If I had seen him doing aerials, I would have stopped him. And he respects me enough to have stopped if I said something. Thanks for the tip; I'll watch him from now on. AND just so you know, I *do* watch out for people doing aerials and lifts at Roger's dance and I *do* point out those people to Roger so he can stop them the next time they try the aerials. I have no interest in him losing his venue just because someone felt they had the right to do aerials at his dance when aerials are banned.

You also know as well as I do that we can't count on people doing the right thing on the dance floor when we want them to so blanket bans on aerials are necessary on the social dance floor. Roger bans the aerials and then tries to watch out for them when he can. He's protecting his venue and his customers from stupid people.

The issue here is, are the aerials done with the endorsement and encouragement of the management? Roger certainly can't watch the floor and he doesn't have a partner to help out during the event anymore, but he tells people that aerials are banned and hopes he stopped the average person so he can watch for the ones who think they don't have to obey the rules. Like the cops, Roger can't be everywhere.

Some of us *have* been around when people did aerials without consideration of the potential effects (particularly on their partners) on the social dance floor. Some of us *have* seen people get hurt. Why would we in good conscience want to encourage that? Especially when it isn't necessary? One of the best dance teachers in Boston *refuses* to teach aerials anymore because he's seen too many people get hurt.

The big question now is, when something happens, do we continue as before or do we stop and think about what we should do? When that older couple fell during the aerial workshop at your first dance, did you stop to think about what would have happened if they had gotten seriously hurt? As my friend had said, apologize all you want after the accident but it's the Scout House that would suffer just because you felt that the likelihood of a serious accident was worth the risk to the Scout House.

As of now, many dance venues have decided that it's not worth risking their existence (and possibly their personal fortunes) to allow aerials. NEFFA was just the latest and there will be more. Are all of them wrong and you are right?

If you want to have a dance and allow aerials on a social dance floor, buy your own building and make the party private. Then I won't say a thing about it.

Item #5: "Making a claim (e.g. the Scout House management agrees with you) without knowing the facts makes you lose credibility on anything else you write."

Actually, I did what reputable newspapers do: I printed a correction. It was reasonable to assume it was the Scout House banning the aerials because I think there were *four* Contra dance venues at the Scout House. My corrections are actually more prominent than the Boston Globe's, I think. Being willing to admit mistakes shows credibility and honor. I could have easily just ignored the correction. Did it change the conclusion of the statement much? Absolutely not! You merely pointed out that an even bigger organization with influence over even more people figured out that it wasn't worth the risk to other people's lives and health and to their own personal fortunes to allow aerials; it doesn't matter if it was the Scout House or the NEFFA people. Thanks for pointing that out, Frank.

It's ain't just me being a malcontent and a curmudgeon; I just happen to have a venue to make noise while most others don't have such a forum to speak out or they're afraid to. Some of them are afraid to get banned from a venue, as I can testify they should be. (FYI to all: Frank banned me from the Scout House swing dances after his first gig there).

People keep reading this editorial space so they must be finding something of value here. There's no point in writing here if no one is going to read it (other than to improve my writing skills, that is). Perhaps they appreciate that I make them think about things or offer different viewpoints? Perhaps I've established some credibility by being willing to stick my neck out to speak about issues that are important to them? Perhaps the fact that I've been running this website for the past 12 years and providing a free service to them has established some solid credibility with the local dancers and local dance businesses?

The NEFFA people are involved in the dancing itself so they're aware of what goes on the dance floor and in the community. They know that it'd hurt them if someone got hurt doing aerials at their venue so they're taking precautions. They don't think it's worth taking unnecessary risks. Good for them.

Item #6: "2) Yes, for many of us, there is indeed something better than just "getting to hold the girl's hand." I described two examples." (which I inserted above).

It's not swing dancing without the girl (or the guy). If I wanted to dance alone, I could go to a disco club, take up line or tap dancing, or go to Dance Friday; I could even dance alone to swing music if I wanted to. With the girl, it becomes social/partner dancing. What about the music? Some people are turned on by the music, but without the girl and without the dancing, it's just a concert. Sure, you might like the music or the dancing, but without the girl, it's not swing dancing. You don't have to hold hands all the time, but it's *all* about the girl and making sure she had fun dancing with you. Dancing *with* the girl/woman makes the music better. If you think otherwise, you might as well be dancing with a chair or a broom...or by yourself.

And I still think that aerials on the social dance floor is just "showing off" and not necessary on the social dance floor. Roger Weiss asked Frankie Manning at the book signing last year about aerials on the dance floor in the old days and he told Roger they didn't do that stuff on the social dance floor, only for competitions and performances. I think he knows what he's talkiing about, don't you?

Again, thank you for caring enough to write in. No one else did. (FYI to all: I told Frank that I was sincere about that because he thought I was being sarcastic.)

Regards,
Benson

I wrote this part of the Soapbox first before trying to fit the emails into the space above. I'd like to thank Frank Hsieh for two things:

1. For writing in. Many people read this editorial area for many reasons:
   • Because they like seeing other people's opinions and getting new ideas.
   • Because they don't like me all that much and want a reason to dislike me even more.
   • Because they have a topic about which they really care about.
   • Because they want to make sure their name didn't show up in the Soapbox.

   That last one always makes me laugh (because it's true). However, most people really don't care enough to write in. They mostly don't want to get involved or they figured that I can be the target instead of them. Others don't want to egg me on because I'll just continue to write about the topic of the week while many don't want to get into an argument with the guy who helps bring them more business. Frank cared enough about this subject to take me on and I salute him for it. Frank is actually pretty brave because I get a whole week to form my words and put my side of the argument in the best possible light while I get the impression he types his words in a short amount of time before sending it. (Would *you* insult someone who gives you a lot of free advertisement and reaches an audience of 25,000 unique visitors a month?)

2. For keeping this subject alive. When I started this topic two weeks ago, I really had nothing to write about and decided to use that email from a friend at the last minute. I had expected the topic to go away the following week. Thanks to Frank, this subject has been given an extra two weeks of visibility and an extra two weeks of life and we now know that a much larger group of people are being told not to do aerials at social dances, not just the venues using the Scout House. This is a good thing.

See you on the dance floor,

Benson Wong

Back issues of the Soapbox are available here.