Jason interviews Wes: Jason's Version
GLF00
posted by Jason Garfield on the WJF forums. Wes, any comments?
An Interview with Wes Peden - The Unedited Version and Full Disclosure
I met Wes Peden in 2005 at the 2nd WJF convention and first interviewed
him for the club competition that aired on ESPN2. He seemed very
intelligent and open minded. I saw him again at the 2006 WJF convention
where he competed for the second year in a row. I interviewed him again
and was impressed with how well he carried himself and again how open
minded and intelligent he appeared. He seemed very supportive of all
styles of juggling, including the WJF competitions.
However after watching his recent "What the Duck" video, it seemed that
something had changed. He seemed to have a negative attitude toward the
WJF, and was almost insisting that everyone stop doing anything that had
been done before, and start creating something new, even if it's bad.
According to what he said in the video, anything new, no matter how good
or bad it is, is better than anything that's been done before.
We were both at the Italian Juggling Convention recently and so I thought
it might be a good idea to interview Wes again. I thought maybe the person
I interviewed before was still there and could clear up a few things if he
just answered a few questions honestly. I thought it was possible that his
video was just a character piece and not who he had really turned into. I
didn't find the time in Italy to interview Wes, but I emailed him after
and suggested that we do an interview through email that I would post on
the WJF forum. Wes agreed, with two stipulations. That he see the
questions first (Which I was fine with because I think that's how most
interviews work), and that he be able to read any discussion on the
interview after it's posted. I was fine with that as well.
We conducted the interview over four or five emails. I had a hard time
getting a straight answer out of Wes, in some cases it seemed he was being
intentionally cryptic and in other cases answered questions that I didn't
ask while not answering the questions I did ask. When I asked for further
clarification, he flat out refused to answer, telling me that he was happy
with his answers and that they were clear enough. It seemed to be too much
to ask for a simple yes or no. Adding metaphors after you've made your
answer clear is fine, but it seemed odd to answer in a way that can be
interpreted as a yes, no maybe, I don't know, I don't care or hey, let's
talk about something completely unrelated.
After the interview was concluded, Wes told me to let him see the full
interview before I post it. There was a lot of telling going on from his
side and not so much asking. This was not something that was agreed to
before starting the interview, but I was going to let him see it anyway
just to make sure he didn't want to change any of his answers or add
anything. I was hoping after reading it that he would. Instead, he told me
that it was fun to do the interview, but it's not the right time to post
it. He gave me no reasons or an eta on when the right time would be, just
as short of a response as he needed to give me his orders. He then told me
to pretend that we were just talking and that it wasn't an interview. I
explained that he had willingly participated in the interview, and that
it's rude to let me do all the work and then tell me not to use it.
However, he responded with," Sorry you think it's rude. So yeah, just
don't post it. Have a nice day". I explained that I probably would post it
considering I complied with his stipulations. Wes' response to this was to
post an edited version of the interview on rec.juggling. That, I just
don't get. Although I don't agree with it, I could understand him trying
to beat me to it but I don't understand why he would post an edited
version. By posting an edited version, he's letting people know which
parts that he doesn't want them to read, which are still present in the
original interview that I put together and am now posting here. So I don't
get it. Also I'm sure there's something ethically wrong with posting an
author's work that they sent you only to review, especially one the person
interviewed edited without permission from the author and posted on a
forum that was not approved and before the author's intended publish date.
It's all just rude and wrong. At least to me, he's appeared very self
important and been inconsiderate, rude and bossy.
So an interview that I thought would serve to clear up some things
actually made it all more confusing and showed me how self indulgent, rude
and inconsiderate Wes can be. Maybe I asked the wrong questions. Maybe I
shouldn't have asked him for clarification. I don't know.
I was planning on posting this interview here with just a little preface
regarding why I decided to interview Wes again, but since Wes posted an
edited version of my interview that I didn't approve for editing or
posting on his behalf, I felt I should explain all the details surrounding
this interview gone wrong. I don't think I'll be interviewing Wes again.
An Interview with Wes Peden
5/14/08
Jason Garfield: Who have been your teachers in Sweden?
Wes Peden: Ivar Hecksner, Katarina Lundmark, Daniel Sudell, Jan Rosen,
Siri Hamari, Luke Wilson, Nicklas Stureberg, Jay Gilligan, Viktor
Gyllenberg, Peter Åberg, and Nalle Laaneta.
Jason Garfield: Who are the ones that you feel have had the most influence
on you?
Wes Peden: Ivar, Jay, Luke, Daniel, and Siri.
Jason Garfield: How did you view juggling before you went to Sweden?
Wes Peden: Juggling was something that i did for fun and put a lot of
physical work into but never very put much mental work or reasoning
behind. I did it because i enjoyed it and did whatever i found fun at the
time not really caring what came out of that.
Jason Garfield: How do you view it now?
Wes Peden: Now it's more important to me what the result of juggling is
and i am more aware of what i am doing and why.
Jason Garfield: What are you doing now and why are you doing it?
Wes Peden: I'm doing experiments and research with juggling composition
trying to work more making the juggling stand on it's own as a interesting
thing and not need other things added to it to make it good. Along with
that i have been trying to find out what is it if something is being
"added" to juggling verses something that is already part of juggling
coming out more. For example there is already rhythm in juggling so if you
emphasize the rhythm you aren't adding something to your juggling you're
just highlighting something in it. Also in juggling you have to move to
make it work, if you emphasize the movement it's still part of the
juggling just showing a different aspect of it. I have also started to
work with the idea of expectations but that is a very big thing that i
believe will take a while to find out all the things i want to know about
it.
Jason Garfield: Very interesting and makes perfect sense. Although I
imagine there may reach a point in someone's creativity where they see
something as being part of juggling that others may not, but as long as
they formed the idea from juggling would you say that it was part of
juggling since the result originated from juggling? For example, what if
someone danced in a site swap pattern and didn't juggle at all? The dance
choreography is based on site swap patterns however they're not juggling
any objects. Would that be taking it too far?
Wes Peden: I like Dance. I like juggling. I like taking things too far.
Jason Garfield: Understood that you like dance, juggling, and taking
things too far. Do you think dancing in a site swap pattern without
juggling is taking this methodology too far?
Wes Peden: (No Comment)
Jason Garfield: What do you want to see less of in juggling and why? What
do you want to see more of in juggling and why?
Wes Peden: I would like to see more people working on and experimenting
with new techniques and taking them further than they do at the moment.
For example we did a research project in school with 3 ball under the leg
and we found a whole bunch of new throw, catches, and combination that i
have never seen done before. This is under the leg we are talking about,
one of the simplest juggling ideas ever and there was so much in it that
no one had done before. If people took the time to do that with other
tricks and when they found something interesting worked on it even if it
isn't the most popular trick to practice.
Jason Garfield: Would you say this kind of creation could be done with 5
club moves as well as 3 ball under the leg moves?
Wes Peden: Yes.
Jason Garfield: Is there a technical difficulty minimum or maximum or is
it just to create something new?
Wes Peden: Well think about it this way if you are a dancer that is very
very flexible and can jump very high and are very strong. You will have
more possibilities to find new things but you may find the most beautiful
thing doesn't need any of those abilities. Then again you maybe find
something incredibly nice were you need those things. I find it the same
with the juggling if you are better at throwing and catching you have more
open to you but it doesn't mean you have to use it all. Sometime a trick
looks better with less sometimes it looks better with more. In this
instance of thinking about finding new tricks i would say to go for the
aesthetics as the important part.
Jason Garfield: Sure, just because you have a high level of technical
ability doesn't mean you'll always need to use it, but it will increase
your range of potential moves, yes?
Wes Peden: Yeah well that's what i meant by "I find it the same with the
juggling if you are better at throwing and catching you have more open to
you."
Jason Garfield: Do you have a preference in terms of the difficulty
present in the newly created moves? For example, would you be just as
happy to see new moves done with 5 clubs as you would be to see new moves
with 3 ball under the leg throws?
Wes Peden: It depends completely on how it looks.
Jason Garfield: Perhaps the experimentation with under the leg throws
could lead to new moves with 5 clubs as well?
Wes Peden: Of course.
Wes Peden: I think the world would be much more interesting if people put
more thought into their juggling.
Jason Garfield: Would this also apply to the thought put into new ways of
presenting juggling?
Wes Peden: yes.
Jason Garfield: Do the WJF competitions and ESPN programs qualify as a new
way of presenting juggling, in your opinion? (Considering what was being
done with juggling prior to 2004)
Wes Peden: yes, i agree that no one had done juggling competitions on TV
before the WJF.
Jason Garfield: That is quite true. But rather then identifying the
originality in the medium used to present the competitions, do you think
the WJF competitions were a new way of presenting juggling? (The format,
the scoring, the interviews, the promo, etc)
Wes Peden: (No Comment)
Jason Garfield: What is your definition of creativity?
Wes Peden: Taking away boarders and judgement and allowing yourself to
fail. Making everything a possibility so you can find every option with
the goal of finding a solution. The hard part come when you want to pick
the best ideas afterwards.
Jason Garfield: What is your definition of originality?
Wes Peden: Thinking for yourself.
Jason Garfield: Agreed, however what if you think of something that has
been done before but you've never seen it? Do you still see that as
original? Do you think you have the right to perform something that was
created before you created it if you were unaware of its previous
existence? (Not meaning individual tricks but routine concepts such as
passing with yourself using a video screen or juggling to a metronome)
Wes Peden: When Disney first started to get big people started stealing
their ideas and a lot of the people that worked for Disney told Walt that
he should file a lawsuit on them or at least tell them to stop. He said
no, and that it was a good thing because it forced them to keep being
creative a make new better things all the time.
i'm not saying that stealing is okay, not at all, but i think there are
better ways to deal with it than getting angry at someone who is doing the
same stuff as you.
Jason Garfield: OK, so if you develop a routine that you've never seen
before and it's original to you but you later find out that someone else
was doing it just like you long before you came up with the idea, do you
still feel you have a right to perform it?
Wes Peden: (No Comment)
Jason Garfield: Do you think there's a right way and a wrong way to
present juggling and why?
Wes Peden: Is there a right or wrong frame for a picture? I like the black
one now but a few years ago i liked the gold one. Both of them can hold
the painting.
Jason Garfield: If you like the black one, would that mean that you think
the gold one is wrong, or just not your taste at the time?
Wes Peden: I can think of very very few things that are wrong.
Jason Garfield: In other words, if you prefer one way of presenting
juggling does that mean you think all the other ways are wrong, or just
not for you?
Wes Peden: Juggling isn't religion.
Jason Garfield: I assume that means you think that only one form of
religion is correct (correct me if I'm wrong), but what about juggling?
Does that mean that, unlike religion the way you see it, there are no
wrong ways to present juggling?
Wes Peden: (No Comment)
Jason Garfield: Is there ANY way of presenting juggling that you think is
wrong and/or shouldn't be done in that way?
Wes Peden: Right and wrong are red and blue not death and taxes.
Jason Garfield: Just to be clear, does that mean you think that there are
no wrong ways to present juggling?
Wes Peden: (No Comment)
Jason Garfield: Do you think there's anything wrong with someone wanting
to only do juggling moves they've seen other people do? For example 4
club scissors, 7 club 360s, 5 ring pancakes. etc?
Wes Peden: No. I also don't find math very interesting.
Jason Garfield: If their taste is in increasing their technical
proficiency and that's all they want to do with juggling and they'd be
perfectly happy with that and are aware of the other possibilities such as
what you are involved with but have no interest in them, do you see that
as a waste of their talent and time?
Wes Peden: I don't think anything is a waste of time. Everything takes you
somewhere. If what you are doing is taking you where you want to go then
sweet!
Jason Garfield: How can someone use juggling to change the world?
Wes Peden: The same way someone can use a dance or a painting to change
the world. I believe that juggling can be just as powerful a medium as
those two. I think that there is still a long way to go with it but i
believe it has the possibility. I think also that it is very hard for
anything to effect on the entire world and especially in juggling since
there are so few people trying to make good things to present that
unfortunately the possibility is quite low at the moment.
Jason Garfield: If juggling were to change the world, what change would
you want it to make?
Wes Peden: I don't want to change the world. I want to improve it. People
are the world and what people make defines the world.
Jason Garfield: I see. So just to be clear, you think juggling can be used
to change the world but you do not want to change the world. You want to
improve it. What improvements would you like to add to the world that
wouldn't change it?
Wes Peden: (No Comment)
Jason Garfield: What change do you think is most likely on a long enough
timeline?
Wes Peden: That's up to the jugglers.
Jason Garfield: Which jugglers? Do you include yourself in that?
Wes Peden: (No Comment)
Jason Garfield: Are you no longer interested in juggling competitions?
Wes Peden: The only one i find interesting at the moment is the juggling
battle at the Circus Ruska Festival. I don't know if that's the only
interesting one out there but that's the one i like right now.
Jason Garfield: Cool, I've not heard of that one. What are the rules? What
do you like about it?
Wes Peden: The rules change each year but it's only a little more
structured than a break dance battle. I like that it's more like a show
and made around audience reaction.
Jason Garfield: If someone is aware of all the styles of juggling (art,
sport, comedy, etc) and has chosen which one they want to do, is there any
reason why they should be told to do otherwise?
Wes Peden: People can tell people anything they want it's up to the person
listening to decide if they care or not.
Jason Garfield: I agree that everyone has the right to say what they want.
Do you think someone who's happy with what they're doing with juggling
should be told to do otherwise? I'm not questioning that person's right to
free speech, I'm wondering if you think the hypothetical juggler in
question needs to be told to do something different.
Wes Peden: Need? i don't know if anyone needs someone else to tell them
what to do or if they should tell them what too do or not. Those are two
very strong words. I think people can say what they want and other people
can listen to what they want then everyone can decide for themselves what
they want to do.
Jason Garfield: When you put together a routine with meaning and purpose,
do you care if the audience understands what that meaning or purpose is?
Why?
Wes Peden: That's different in different acts. Sometimes you want people
to see what the inspiration was, sometime it doesn't matter, and sometimes
you don't want them to see it at all.
Jason Garfield: Why would you not want the audience to see the meaning in
a routine that you have created to have meaning?
Wes Peden: If i have pulled inspiration for an act from a relationship
that i am having trouble with, using that to base my ideas and
choreography on. It's only going to make since to me why this movement
represents that time when we didn't talk for a ling time. It's not
important that the audience sees what's behind it, i only used it to help
me find ideas for the act.
Jason Garfield: Does this also mean you wouldn't want them to guess
correctly either?
Wes Peden: In most cases there is no way they would but i don't really
care if they do or not.
Jason Garfield: The objective in this case would be for the audience to
not be able to determine what the meaning is, yes?
Wes Peden: You can look at an abstract painting and have no idea what the
inspiration is behind it but still have your own ideas about it and enjoy
it for other reasons.
Jason Garfield: Do you want them to know that there's meaning and also not
know what that meaning is, or do you want there to be meaning and have the
audience think that there's no meaning in it at all?
Wes Peden: That doesn't matter so much to me.
Jason Garfield: In order of priority, who are your performances for? The
audience or yourself? Why?
Wes Peden: I don't have personal laws about my performance, i can change
what i do whenever i want. Most of the time it's a mix. It depends on if
it's just something i go do on the street on on a open stage i do whatever
i want which sometime has me not caring about the audience and sometimes
does. If i am being paid to go somewhere and they want me to do a certain
thing of course i will do it for them. Also sometime the audience is
coming to see me do what i find interesting in which case i am doing a
show for me and them.
Jason Garfield: I've heard a lot of people refer to your new way of
presenting juggling as being identical to Jay Gilligan.
Do you mind if some people have stopped identifying your juggling with you
and now think of another juggler when they see your videos and
performances?
Wes Peden: Jay is a very very smart man and incredible at juggling. he's
been making new shows, directing show, and doing wonderful things with his
juggling for a long time. I make videos, go to circus school, and sing
children's songs in german. If people think we are "identical" i don't
care very much at all because it's obvious that whoever is saying that
hasn't seen either of our work.
--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
Tim from Leeds
reading the whole thing, I think the following questions were the only
things edited out. None of them had replies:
Understood that you like dance, juggling, and taking things too far. Do
you think dancing in a site swap pattern without juggling is taking this
methodology too far?
That is quite true. But rather then identifying the originality in the
medium used to present the competitions, do you think the WJF competitions
were a new way of presenting juggling? (The format, the scoring, the
interviews, the promo, etc)
OK, so if you develop a routine that you've never seen before and it's
original to you but you later find out that someone else was doing it just
like you long before you came up with the idea, do you still feel you have
a right to perform it?
I assume that means you think that only one form of religion is correct
(correct me if I'm wrong), but what about juggling? Does that mean that,
unlike religion the way you see it, there are no wrong ways to present
juggling?
Just to be clear, does that mean you think that there are no wrong ways to
present juggling?
I see. So just to be clear, you think juggling can be used to change the
world but you do not want to change the world. You want to improve it.
What improvements would you like to add to the world that wouldn't change
it?
Which jugglers? Do you include yourself in that?
You'll probably notice they're all asking for clarification (which Wes
presumably felt no need to give). Hopefully that will save some other
people the laborious task of wading through both interviews looking for
the differences.
Tim
Adrian Pole
jgl smltr v0
> presumably felt no need to give). Hopefully that will save some other
> people the laborious task of wading through both interviews looking for
> the differences.
He only edited the stupid questions out I must say; Wes' answers were
clear enough
wes peden
>
> I just noticed this today (although I think it was posted yesterday),
> posted by Jason Garfield on the WJF forums. Wes, any comments?
yup, coming right up.
for some reason i can't post on the wjf forum anymore...
actually i said.
"I answered the questions the way i wanted to the first time so please
just show the questions that i
put answers to."
"Jason said that he thought that just as i though my answers were fine he
thought that his fallow up
questions were also valid so that people could see that he tried to get
more clear answers."
this totally makes sense but it was at this point when i started to think
why was i even doing the
interview. if i wanted people to know something i could just tell them
myself. so i asked Jason not to
post it.
Jason write back this.
"Sorry, the interview is going to be posted online as you requested."
this got my annoyed a bit because they were my answers and it seemed like
jason was acting like he
owned them now. since he said "as you requested" and the only thing i
requested was that the
questions that i didn't answer be taken out i thought that it would be
okay.
so i didn't know i was editing it any different than he would have. i knew
he was going to post it to the
wjf forum and eventually someone would post it here. i would rather that
be me so people could ask
me stuff if they wanted.
>He gave me no reasons or an eta on when the right time would be, just
> as short of a response as he needed to give me his orders. He then told me
> to pretend that we were just talking and that it wasn't an interview. I
> explained that he had willingly participated in the interview, and that
> it's rude to let me do all the work and then tell me not to use it.
> However, he responded with," Sorry you think it's rude. So yeah, just
> don't post it. Have a nice day".
>I explained that I probably would post it
> considering I complied with his stipulations.
>Wes' response to this was to
> post an edited version of the interview on rec.juggling. That, I just
> don't get. Although I don't agree with it, I could understand him trying
> to beat me to it but I don't understand why he would post an edited
> version. By posting an edited version, he's letting people know which
> parts that he doesn't want them to read, which are still present in the
> original interview that I put together and am now posting here.
those are just the questions that i didn't feel i needed to answer but
when you put a (no comment)
thing next to it that still says something. i have put my reasons for not
answering down by my no
comments.
> So I don't
> get it. Also I'm sure there's something ethically wrong with posting an
> author's work that they sent you only to review, especially one the person
> interviewed edited without permission from the author and posted on a
> forum that was not approved and before the author's intended publish date.
so there isn't anything wrong with saying that you are going to post a
person's interview that they
have asked you not to post? aren't those answers that you are acting like
you now own mine?
> It's all just rude and wrong. At least to me, he's appeared very self
> important and been inconsiderate, rude and bossy.
sorry i came off that way. thank you though for being respectful of my
wishes and gracious throughout the whole affair...
>
> So an interview that I thought would serve to clear up some things
> actually made it all more confusing and showed me how self indulgent, rude
> and inconsiderate Wes can be. Maybe I asked the wrong questions. Maybe I
> shouldn't have asked him for clarification. I don't know.
>
> I was planning on posting this interview here with just a little preface
> regarding why I decided to interview Wes again, but since Wes posted an
> edited version of my interview that I didn't approve for editing or
> posting on his behalf, I felt I should explain all the details surrounding
> this interview gone wrong.
>I don't think I'll be interviewing Wes again.
that's such a strange thing to say. like i am a big disappointment to you
or i should feel a special honor by you interviewing me or something.
i don't particularly like being interviewed or asked questions. when i
have something that i am
thinking that i want people to know i have plenty of ways to tell them
myself. so why did you do the
interview wes? yeah... i don't know.
Wes Peden: (No Comment)
the reason i didn't answer this is because i think it's a very boring
question. taking this methodology
too far? like all of a sudden if there are no balls or clubs it's bad?
i didn't answer this because i didn't want to talk about the wjf.
i think a lot of this kind of thing is very silly and it doesn't interest
me very much so i didn't talk with
him about it.
>
> Jason Garfield: Do you think there's a right way and a wrong way to
> present juggling and why?
>
> Wes Peden: Is there a right or wrong frame for a picture? I like the black
> one now but a few years ago i liked the gold one. Both of them can hold
> the painting.
>
> Jason Garfield: If you like the black one, would that mean that you think
> the gold one is wrong, or just not your taste at the time?
>
> Wes Peden: I can think of very very few things that are wrong.
>
> Jason Garfield: In other words, if you prefer one way of presenting
> juggling does that mean you think all the other ways are wrong, or just
> not for you?
>
> Wes Peden: Juggling isn't religion.
>
> Jason Garfield: I assume that means you think that only one form of
> religion is correct (correct me if I'm wrong), but what about juggling?
> Does that mean that, unlike religion the way you see it, there are no
> wrong ways to present juggling?
i felt that i had already made my point and anyone reading it would
understand so i wasn't interested
to answer this one.
> Jason Garfield: Is there ANY way of presenting juggling that you think is
> wrong and/or shouldn't be done in that way?
>
> Wes Peden: Right and wrong are red and blue not death and taxes.
>
> Jason Garfield: Just to be clear, does that mean you think that there are
> no wrong ways to present juggling?
>
> Wes Peden: (No Comment)
>
as i already said i felt i was clear on this already so i felt no need to
say more.
when i wrote my answer it came out a bit weird but again i felt people
would understand basically
what i was saying so no need to say it again.
>
> Jason Garfield: What change do you think is most likely on a long enough
> timeline?
>
> Wes Peden: That's up to the jugglers.
>
> Jason Garfield: Which jugglers? Do you include yourself in that?
>
> Wes Peden: (No Comment)
i felt that this was unneeded clarification.
OH MY GOD SCANDAL!
elias luke erik and oscar run to your computers!
Marden117
> > Jason Garfield: I've heard a lot of people refer to your new way of
> > presenting juggling as being identical to Jay Gilligan.
> > Do you mind if some people have stopped identifying your juggling with you
> > and now think of another juggler when they see your videos and
> > performances?
> >
> > Wes Peden: Jay is a very very smart man and incredible at juggling. he's
> > been making new shows, directing show, and doing wonderful things with his
> > juggling for a long time. I make videos, go to circus school, and sing
> > children's songs in german. If people think we are "identical" i don't
> > care very much at all because it's obvious that whoever is saying that
> > hasn't seen either of our work.
>
> OH MY GOD SCANDAL!
>
> elias luke erik and oscar run to your computers!
I imagine this will make the next "Juggling Crib" comic strip.
Jay Gilligan
yeah, so here's some of my thoughts on this, directed to jason, i don't
have the time or energy to
register for his forum so i'm just being lazy and putting this here-
>
> After the interview was concluded, Wes told me to let him see the full
> interview before I post it. There was a lot of telling going on from his
> side and not so much asking. This was not something that was agreed to
> before starting the interview, but I was going to let him see it anyway
> just to make sure he didn't want to change any of his answers or add
> anything.
that's really nice of you to be to willing to break from the traditional
interview rules set up in your (i
suppose) original interview contract that you both signed before starting
this whole crazy huge
undertaking- also, the same document where it says requests must be
submitted in the form of a
question. which i also assume at this point you will start the favorite
game of arguing semantics and
point out that a request is defined as a question so yes, i can see your
confusion for all of his telling
going on without asking your (royal) permission.
but seriously jason, i'm with you 100%- when you are interviewing jugglers
for online forums for self-
publication, its just completely unreasonable and illogical and unheard of
that the juggler being
interviewed starts to do things not agreed upon beforehand, such as asking
to see the whole article
before posting it. (by the way, i'm really interested at this point to
interview you for the xwjf forum,
please contact me on private email although i can tell you ahead of time
you won't be able to read the
final draft before i put it in the public eye- ok?)
then, here, you say that he asked you to not post it, and you thought that
to be rude-
> I explained that he had willingly participated in the interview, and that
> it's rude to let me do all the work and then tell me not to use it.
> However, he responded with," Sorry you think it's rude. So yeah, just
> don't post it. Have a nice day". I explained that I probably would post it
> considering I complied with his stipulations.
well, hmmm. even if you think it is rude, or i think it is rude, or the
wjf x-treme monday funday
competition rules say its rude, or the whole world thinks it is rude,
wasn't one of his stipulations, that
you just wrote yourself saying he said, that you should not post the
interview? i don't understand how
then you can follow that quote by "explaining" that you were going to post
it anyway because you had
complied with his stipulations. by posting it, weren't you directly not
following his stipulation? wait, i
need a second to get a dictionary and look up the word stipulation, its
been a while since i've had to
use that in a sentence and maybe i'm forgetting the definition
> It's all just rude and wrong. At least to me, he's appeared very self
> important and been inconsiderate, rude and bossy.
yes! yes and yes.
self important- as in, "hey, i'm interviewing you for my website and
therefore you OWE me to be
honest, and responsive, and tell every little detail i wish you to answer
about. like when you answer a
loaded question that i pose to you with not enough details or with not the
answer i was looking for,
then you should really consider more who you are talking to, i mean, its
for my forum!!!"
inconsiderate- as in, "you asked me to not post this interview right now
so therefore i write you back
and say i'm going to publish it anyway." and also, "you're an 18 year old
immature little boy with little
to no professional experience and i find you annoying and not giving me or
this interview enough
respect but instead of me just being the bigger, more mature person and
chalking this experience up
in my personal file as keeping my distance from young skittish kids, i'm
going to air all of our dirty
laundry in public as a way of payback for you first of all not realizing
how important and powerful i
am and having the gall to ask me to see the interview before posting it,
then having the audacity to
ask me to not post it, and finally posting it and editing all my hard
slaved labor (and by editing i mean
publishing the version we had agreed upon originally which i would have
put online with no problem
except then you pissed me off so now i'm going to be an asshole right back
to you), which besides
being an artistic crime is unethical, unmoral, unconstitutional, and
unfathomable." like that?
rude- as in, "i'm going to interview you, but you have no right to have a
say in if this collaboration
between us sees the light of day?"
bossy- as in, "you asked me to not post it but i'm going to do it anyway
since i'm making up the rules
here in the first place and you have no say?"
wes is totally just like that!!!!! finally someone called him out on it. i
was getting sick of kicking back
and having everyone like his online videos but never focusing on these
character flaws
then you went on to say after some time-
> but since Wes posted an
> edited version of my interview that I didn't approve for editing or
> posting on his behalf, I felt I should explain all the details surrounding
> this interview gone wrong.
so wait, now i'm a little bit confused- wes said you couldn't post the
interview and your response was
to say you were going to do it anyway. but then, he put it online and you
are writing telling the world
about this because you didn't approve of him editing or posting it on his
behalf? so, when wes says
you can't post it, you ignore his word and he's wrong and he's supposed to
be fine with that, but when
you say he shouldn't edit it and can't post it himself, then he's the one
who is wrong again? so no
matter what happens, jason's always right? oh yeah! now i remember! sorry
for all the fuss, now i'm
not confused anymore.
but i think this message is good to talk about. its universal and touches
all of us deeply. its not just a
petty matter of a superficial interview on an off shoot online juggling
forum. it brings up the concept
that if someone does something you think is rude, and something you think
is wrong, the correct way
to respond is to be rude and wrong yourself.
the last revealing thing you say before righting the wrong of the
mutilated version of the masterpiece
interview you orchestrated is
>I don't think I'll be interviewing Wes again.
and once again, i have to say this is really some food for thought! i just
had my secretary cancel
several of the upcoming interviews i had planned with various individuals.
i just had horrible thoughts
flash through my head, imagining i would end up wasting my time dealing
with exactly the same
rude, ego-centric, self absorbed, weird, inconsistent, better-than-me
jugglers that you just did,
totally oblitterating perfectly fine guitar hero 3 time ( or DDR as i hear
the world sport juggling
federation has at their official world championships of sports juggling
that is to be taken seriously as
athletes and respect their technique. and play DDR)!
i just love this internet thing!
Jay Gilligan
>
> I find this almost upsetting.
>
why?
ThrowinStuff101
thinking to myself at a few points in the "unedited" version, "why is
Jason asking that?" Most of those were followed by (No Comment) and It
made complete sense to me why Wes did not answer them.
Colin E.
>
> Adrian Pole wrote:
> >
> > I find this almost upsetting.
> >
>
> why?
>
Possibly because two people that a young juggler might see as role models
are embroiled in a very petty, and public, argument?
Colin E.
Jay Gilligan
>
> Jay Gilligan wrote:
> >
> > Adrian Pole wrote:
> > >
> > > I find this almost upsetting.
> > >
> >
> > why?
> >
>
> Possibly because two people that a young juggler might see as role models
> are embroiled in a very petty, and public, argument?
>
> Colin E.
>
>
>
that was very politically correct, and a very intelligent and clever way
to twist the question- at the
same time pointing out and giving some perspective and subtle judgement to
the issue. so kudos to
you for that.
however, i suspect that what you wrote is not at all what ady had in mind.
and i would still like him to
answer his question as what it implies is almost upsetting to me...
thanks for playing!
(also, if you have extra time for the bonus round- could you please point
out how wes is having an
argument in public and being petty? i'm not saying he's not, just would
like to hear you clarify your
opinion?)
Colin E.
>
> Colin E. wrote:
> >
> > Jay Gilligan wrote:
> > >
> > > Adrian Pole wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I find this almost upsetting.
> > > >
> > >
> > > why?
> > >
> >
> > Possibly because two people that a young juggler might see as role models
> > are embroiled in a very petty, and public, argument?
> >
> > Colin E.
> >
>
> that was very politically correct, and a very intelligent and clever way
> to twist the question- at the
> same time pointing out and giving some perspective and subtle judgement to
> the issue. so kudos to
> you for that.
Thanks. Twisting questions? Why don't we turn this into an interview?
> however, i suspect that what you wrote is not at all what ady had in mind.
> and i would still like him to
> answer his question as what it implies is almost upsetting to me...
>
> thanks for playing!
And thanks to you for makig the game ;-)
> (also, if you have extra time for the bonus round- could you please point
> out how wes is having an
> argument in public and being petty? i'm not saying he's not, just would
> like to hear you clarify your
> opinion?)
Extra time? sure. If it's a choice between cleaning the kitchen or
rec.juggling, I know which I'd choose any day.
Public? That's easy. This is the internet.
Petty? A squabble over the final edit for an interview that will probably
hang around on the front page of a forum for a week or two, then disappear
into the archives is hardly a big deal.
What I find interesting is that Jason's interview question appeared to me
to be quite insightful. A stark contrast to the image which he has
recently portrayed. Although, the preface to the interview is very much at
odds with this.
Regards,
Colin E.
elias
Nope. Jason is banned from the cyber space counter-part of the juggling
crib.
/ Elias Hedlund
Jay Gilligan
superb! our kitchen is also a total wreck- i live with wes and it was
never as clean as when he had a
girlfriend visiting! plus now we're destroying our wrists with guitar hero
3 on a regular basis- its our
new rec.juggling! and real juggling for that matter!!! hmmmm....
all the best,
j
Sammywoo
don't post on here regularly, other than my occasional HLCB, but I feel
really sad that everyone seems to have this necessity to air their dirty
laundry on rec.juggling. This thread has really got me thinking...
In my opinion an interview between Wes and Jason was never going to have
the perfect outcome, considering it was between two very strong
opinionated and strong willed characters with blatently obvious different
views (not that these are bad traits...don't get me wrong). I think we
all need to take a chill pill, the more sport/WJF orientated juggler will
never have the same view as a creative juggler then to a performance based
juggler then to every other juggler who has a particular interest! For
goodness sake if we did the the juggling conventions that take place would
be bloomin boring!!!!
Rec.juggling is turning more and more political by the day! I just find it
sad that there seems to be little appreciation for other peoples views and
you seem to either have the 'right' or 'wrong' view on something. I'm not
a great juggler but I really enjoy comedic/entertaining 'performances',
but arty juggling with underlying meanings isn't really for me, thats not
to say its crap, you just won't find me watching it of choice.
Don't get me wrong, neither am I saying that there should be no discussion
on what is good or bad or whether someone was out of line with what they
said. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just think we have lost the
concept of 'constructive critism'. Just the amount of 'bitching' and
'slagging off' in my opinion is a bit disheartening!
ErikAberg
No way, Elias is too much of a nice guy to kick someone already laying
down.
Paul
Gilligan) wrote:
> Adrian Pole wrote:
>
> > I find this almost upsetting.
>
> why?
I agree with Ady, this follow up thread upset me too. I felt that in
the first post, both Jason and Wes came off very well. Jason was
obviousy angling his questions towards WJF doctrine (as is natural and
good) and Wes was answering truthfully, in a way that would not upset
or alienate Jason. It pleased me to see some WJF related material that
was not controversial, and was honestly a good read between two
excellent jugglers, whom I both admire for their skill, with different
styles and outlooks on juggling.
How and why this turned into yet another war of words between two
people who both enjoy throwing and catching stuff, is totally beyond
me and I offer no analysis of the who's right and wrong form. It just
saddens me slightly is all.
Paul B.
-------------
Breaking his run of silence.
Steven Ragatz
this be a little lesson about the business side as well I'm afraid. The
Jason Garfield's of the world are opportunistic and clearly have their own
agendas. When you work with them, you do so on their terms, not your own.
If you are not prepared to be used by them, then I suggest a polite "No
thank-you" is in order and go about your own business. Nobody can say
that Jason's actions and behavior haven't lived up to his reputation. You
can be frustrated and angry, but not surprised.
In short, you walked right into that one!
Steven Ragatz
jimifun
i would simply love to see jasons responce to that. i think another
interview is in order.
but what did jason expect?
"oh sideswaps are good"
"and nothing makes me happier then when people are judged on how not to
move their feet when juggling"
i think that interview, edited and unedited, were trademark wes.
rhalf
Man, you must having a hard time recently. Although I know how good that
may influence your output. Those accusations of beeing self-indulged are
rediculous. The only time you seemed big headed was here at 0:56
http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=iJSnAVAncXc ;)
I like both of you guys, but now Garfield may say that you're aware of
what people may think about you, so you posted it on rec.juggling. That
would mean nothing more than that he is escaping from confessing to his
arrogance.
JugglerPeter
> but what did jason expect?
>
> "oh sideswaps are good"
> "and nothing makes me happier then when people are judged on how not to
> move their feet when juggling"
>
> i think that interview, edited and unedited, were trademark wes.
> "
>
Has anyone else noticed how Jason Garfield has been associated recently
with siteswaps. It's very interesting. He doesn't do very many
siteswaps, and the original WJF rules were very anti-siteswap (that's why
the 1st competition had so few of them). However, as the WJF commumity has
grown and more young jugglers are into siteswaps, comments like this one
are creeping up all over and Jason has gone from enemy to defender of the
siteswap.
(for those who forgot here is a thread about the original wjf rules on
siteswaps
http://www.jugglingdb.com/news/thread.php?id=131875&group=1&highlight=wjf%2Crules%2Csiteswap)
catiecat
That's really good advice Steven. I used to have this one agent who would
treat his performers like crap. He would never pay us on time. The
conditions were never what he said they would be, he never had the
material he said he would have, the times were never what he said they
would be, etc... But, it would really do no good to bitch and moan, or to
talk badly about him to other people in the business because that only
makes you look bad. All I could do was politely decline his calls, or if I
had nothing to do that night, take the gig but realize what I was getting
into and not expect too much.
I don't work for this man anymore, but I also let the relationship die
slowly and gracefully, rather than with a big confrontation. To paraphrase
from Jay's post, it doesn't make it any better when someone is a big jerk
to you, to be a big jerk right back to them.
You don't really have to justify yourself to anyone Wes, just let your
work speak for itself.
Cate
PS I've only had two interactions in my entire life with the man who
interviewed you (once in person and once on the internet) and yet from
that, I have so upset and offended him that years later he still feels the
need to insult me and spread vicious rumors about me behind my back (to my
good friends no less...). I can only imagine what you're getting into by
actually agreeing to talk to him...
catiecat
Jugglers are really weird. I'm glad that I'm a circus performer.
Cate
Alan Thompson
Steven Ragatz
>
> Well, Jason is an embarrassment to us all.
>
>
In ways, but in Jason's defense, he is just doing his thing the way he
wants to do it. To his credit, his behavior is consistent (unfortunately)
and is just trying to make a living at juggling like many of us. I don't
think that it is fair to begrudge Jason his business model or his
approach. If you don't like the product, don't buy it.
When Jason chose to interview Wes, he was obviously looking for WJF
validation, and by accepting the interview, Wes should have been prepared
to support the WJF. If Wes isn't interested in supporting Jason's
organization or views, then it is his responsibility to not participate.
If he does choose to participate, he does so knowing what the WJF is
about, and how its organizer works.
I don't buy the significance of either party's claim to ownership of the
copy, when it should be posted, etc. This is not proprietary information
here, it's just a casual interview. I believe the real underlying issue
to be ego, a little hurt pride and narrow minded idealism. Looks to me
like they are both playing the same silly, and inconsequential game.
Art? Sport? Business? Truth be told, it is probably in the middle
somewhere.
Steven Ragatz
Adrian Pole
change in Wes' personality. Don't get me wrong, he has been one of my
favourite jugglers for a while now.I hope that Wes' personality hasn't
changed, just as the amount of inspiration he provides me with hasn't.
M Nicoll
Steven Ragatz wrote:
> Well Wes, you're in school to learn about juggling and performing, but let
> this be a little lesson about the business side as well I'm afraid. The
> Jason Garfield's of the world are opportunistic and clearly have their own
> agendas. When you work with them, you do so on their terms, not your own.
Surely this works both ways. I get the impression Wes is pretty much
universally liked by the commity. Not withstanding those who may or may
not be into bin liners and german nursary rhymes, everyone knows and
appreciates a lot of the work he's put out. For Jason to approach him
"looking for WJF validation" when there's a chance that Wes might not
'play ball' on his terms, seems like a risky move.
That said, I thought it was a great interview - I could see where the
questions were coming from and thought the answers, by and large, were
really good.
Adrian Pole
>
> Jay, what I find 'almost upsetting', as I said, is what appears to be a
> change in Wes' personality. Don't get me wrong, he has been one of my
> favourite jugglers for a while now.I hope that Wes' personality hasn't
> changed, just as the amount of inspiration he provides me with hasn't.
>
what jason states is a change in his personality, by the way-sorry for
that being so unclear.
Steven Ragatz
>
> Steven Ragatz wrote:
> > Well Wes, you're in school to learn about juggling and performing, but let
> > this be a little lesson about the business side as well I'm afraid. The
> > Jason Garfield's of the world are opportunistic and clearly have their own
> > agendas. When you work with them, you do so on their terms, not your own.
>
> Surely this works both ways. I get the impression Wes is pretty much
> universally liked by the commity. Not withstanding those who may or may
> not be into bin liners and german nursary rhymes, everyone knows and
> appreciates a lot of the work he's put out. For Jason to approach him
> "looking for WJF validation" when there's a chance that Wes might not
> 'play ball' on his terms, seems like a risky move.
>
> That said, I thought it was a great interview - I could see where the
> questions were coming from and thought the answers, by and large, were
> really good.
I don't think being liked or popular makes a bit of difference any more
than being a talented and skilled juggler makes you a good person. My
reasons for the two posts in the thread were to inject a little
perspective as to why I think both parties are at fault. As far as I can
tell, they both deserved what they get.
'nuf said.
Steven Ragatz
Alex!
>
> I actually found that we Wes was clear on all his answers. I was actually
> thinking to myself at a few points in the "unedited" version, "why is
> Jason asking that?" Most of those were followed by (No Comment) and It
> made complete sense to me why Wes did not answer them.
>
I completely agree, though some of Wes's answers were slightly ambiguos
these didn't seem to be the ones that Jason tried to confirm. Mainly the
ones he did try to confirm had been stated in the previous answer and
these seemed to fit with the 'no comment' answers so everything made sense.
On another note, I do agree with Jason for posting the interview. Wes
should of kept with his original decision of being part of a public
interview, even if he changed his mind, he should of kept to his original
choice as they had already started.
I also don't understand why Jason had a problem with Wes viewing the
transcript. Surely he had nothing to hide unless he changed part of it or
neglected pieces of information.
Jay Gilligan
>
>
> On another note, I do agree with Jason for posting the interview. Wes
> should of kept with his original decision of being part of a public
> interview, even if he changed his mind, he should of kept to his original
> choice as they had already started.
> I also don't understand why Jason had a problem with Wes viewing the
> transcript. Surely he had nothing to hide unless he changed part of it or
> neglected pieces of information.
>
boy alex!, you'd be really fun to take on a date-
alex!- "want to come back to my place?"
other person- "ok!"
alex!- "want to kiss me?"
other person- "ok!"
alex!- "this is going great! want to have sex with me?"
other person- "ok!"
alex!- "great, then let's get started!"
other person- "wait! sorry, i changed my mind for some reason that doesn't
matter at all why i
changed it, just that i did, and its entirely within my rights to change
my mind at any moment, even if
we were in the middle of having sex i could change my mind and stop if i
wanted to... right?"
alex!- "no way! you have to have sex with me because you said you would in
the first place. and now
you're changing your mind. but you should still have sex with me as you
originally stated, and i'm
going to take this foolish concept and write about it in a post on
rec.juggling only change the
situation from having sex to making an interview with wes peden. and i
guess in a sense, in this
analogy you are wes peden who changed his mind about having an interview
published, maybe even
he changed his mind for some of the reasons steven ragatz pointed out
about getting involved with
jason because maybe wes is a nice guy and open and trusting because he's
not all old and jaded and
bitter and totally cynical yet, and then maybe, just maybe after at first
accepting the interview request
from herr garfield, he was all like hmmm no actually i don't like where
this is headed and decided to
not have sex with jason."
eller?
Jay Gilligan
>
> Adrian Pole wrote:
> >
> > Jay, what I find 'almost upsetting', as I said, is what appears to be a
> > change in Wes' personality. Don't get me wrong, he has been one of my
> > favourite jugglers for a while now.I hope that Wes' personality hasn't
> > changed, just as the amount of inspiration he provides me with hasn't.
> >
>
> what jason states is a change in his personality, by the way-sorry for
> that being so unclear.
>
what is most disturbing is that you trust jason garfield's word as a sign
that wes peden has changed
his personality.
and not only that, you were unable to understand the slanderous and hidden
agenda in garfield's post
on his forum- for example, can you think of any reason why jason would use
the words like "wrong"
and "ethically" in the context he did for his rant?
here's some more examples i would like to draw your attention to- jason
wrote:
"I had a hard time
getting a straight answer out of Wes, in some cases it seemed he was being
intentionally cryptic and in other cases answered questions that I didn't
ask while not answering the questions I did ask."
now, i ain't passed the bar but i know a little bit, enough that if i was
in a courtroom i would yell
"objection!" at this point and when the judge would ask why i would point
out relevancy? so what if
wes answered questions that jason didn't ask and didn't answer ones that
jason did ask? what did wes
owe jason? and maybe, if you dig deep, you can even yourself remember a
time when someone asked
you a question and it led to you think of something related but from a
different angle so instead of
answering the first question you just go ahead and give the deeper answer?
if you can't think of one,
how about something like you mom asks if you want to eat hot dogs for
dinner, and you reply "it
takes 10 acres of grain and produces 6 tons of organic waste just to
process one hot dog, not to
mention the cruelty to the animal slaughter involved, not to mention the
unsanitary conditions in
which they are produced!" now, you didn't actually answer the question
your mom asked, did you? in
fact you were answering the question "what don't you like about hot dogs?"
which all boils down to
your reply being an educational version of "no mom, no hot dogs tonight!"
and here's another timeless jason jem of a quote-
"It seemed to be too much
to ask for a simple yes or no."
ah, the tragedy. this was the part of his rant where i really started to
feel for the guy, ya know? i think
all we're ever looking for in this life is a simple yes or no- even your
mother in the above example...
and p.s.- how come in your first response to my question you wrote, and i
quote-
"Jay, what I find 'almost upsetting', as I said,"
i'm kind of confused about what the "as I said" part means as i think
usually this implies that you have
already explained previously what you find almost upsetting, but here i
think you mean it to simply
refer to the fact that you had already used the words "almost upsetting"?
Paul
>take this foolish concept and write about it in a post on
>rec.juggling only change the
>situation from having sex to making an interview with wes peden.
Dude, please tell me you didn't just compare a request about
publishing an interview with rape?
I don't like where this thread is headed. If ever there was time to
kill a discussion, it's now.
Just my tuppence'orth.
Paul B.
Alex!
Ok, seriously, your blowing things way out of proportion.
I don't think sex can be compared to an interview as they are so
different. But if you want to continue your comparison I can show you
where you have gone wrong. As in your analogy it was implied that she did
want to have sex though she changed her mind before the act had started.
In the case of Wes's interview, he had already completed the interview or
was quite a way into in it before Wes changed his mind so it is a
completely different case.
If you really wanted, in keeping with your analogy, if she changed her
mind 1 or 2 thrusts before climax, what would you do, or more importantly,
don't you think that would be taking the p*ss as i believe Wes has done.
Sorry if that seemed a bit graphic.
d_n_b
off insecure and in search of
drama.
Wes wasn't trying to publicly embarrass anyone. He introduced a subtle
bias by editing the interview
slightly, but it does not come off as attempted character defamation.
As president and founder of an aspiring organization, Jason could have
posted his version of the
interview with a classy preface expressing his side with a bit more
diplomacy. As articulate as he may be,
he appears unable to do this.
Dan
Ed Provencher
Alan Thompson
Well ,since we know that the existence of rational man is a sad paradigm,
then we know that it is a joke to assume that people act according to
their set goals. It is also pretty clear that translucent perspectives
and time consistence in humans are impossible to avoid. Thus it would be
mistake to hold any human to any expectation of rational thought or
action. Why would we ever try?
Yeah.... or we could pass our judgments and get on with it.
--Jason is an embarrassment to jugglers everywhere. This is based on
informal research ,hazardously collected data, and inconsistent mediums of
communications. This hypothesis is entirely untested.
But, never mind, it is entirely inconsequential.
a fly without wings is called a ........"walk".
Inconsequential.
catiecat
Wow. Jay. Wow. I didn't know that there was anything in the world of
juggling that was as serious or as terrifying as being forcibly
penetrated....
I think you guys take juggling (and yourselves) way too seriously. I'm
disappointed.
Cate
PS Jay, you don't know too many rape survivors do you?
rhalf
I guess he doesn't take juggling so seriously, he just makes light of rape.
I think that part of a discussion is superfluous and obvious, but... kind
of funny.
parapsycho
I agree with you both.
I've had similar experiences in juggling, as well as in other things.
I've found that when the other party involved starts acting
unprofessional, it's best to just walk away. While it's tempting to 'have
the last word', doing so can just bring you down to their level, and leave
others questioning your professionalism. If they continue beyond that
point, it's all on them.
For example, I ran a paranormal investigation team. When most of the team
left to join a former member's team, we had one person come to our public
meetings and passive-aggressively bash our group. We simply allowed him to
come to the meetings and make an ass out of himself, since he wasn't very
good at hiding his motives. In the end, it really hurt the professional
image of the team he represented, and he stopped showing up. Problem
Solved.
It's all about picking your battles.
In flame wars, usually everybody loses.
ManiacDrew
> I don't buy the significance of either party's claim to ownership of the
> copy, when it should be posted, etc. This is not proprietary information
> here, it's just a casual interview. I believe the real underlying issue
> to be ego, a little hurt pride and narrow minded idealism. Looks to me
> like they are both playing the same silly, and inconsequential game.
>
> Art? Sport? Business? Truth be told, it is probably in the middle
> somewhere.
>
> Steven Ragatz
This.
MD
ultimatewannabe
>
> In flame wars, usually everybody loses.
>
If only it worked that way for American politicians. . . . .
ManiacDrew
>
> Adrian Pole wrote:
> >
> > Adrian Pole wrote:
> > >
> > > Jay, what I find 'almost upsetting', as I said, is what appears to be a
> > > change in Wes' personality. Don't get me wrong, he has been one of my
> > > favourite jugglers for a while now.I hope that Wes' personality hasn't
> > > changed, just as the amount of inspiration he provides me with hasn't.
> > >
> >
> > what jason states is a change in his personality, by the way-sorry for
> > that being so unclear.
> >
>
>
> what is most disturbing is that you trust jason garfield's word as a sign
> that wes peden has changed
> his personality.
What would be more disturbing is if you did NOT see the irony
in Jay Gilligan attempting to undermine your trust in Jason.
Jedi mind tricks if I've ever seen 'em.
If I recall correctly, Wes was inspired/mentored, in part, by
Lord Peden,
Lord Garfield,
Lord Gilligan.
Where's the video of Wes devaluing his father's contribution?
We saw the video where he devalues sport juggling & the WJF.
Perhaps we'll see a video of him devaluing "his new Sith Lord"
Count me in the camp that doesn't see Wes as "very creative."
He does some new things with common manipulation props, but
from his anti video, I would expect him to put a TON of time
into something other than clubs, rings, balls, diablo, etc.
When he starts juggling water with plungers or putting down
say, 25% of his future footage on with new props, then, we
will place more value on his position on originality.
I see Wes becoming the "best 'all-around' juggler of all time".
However, it won't happen if he is willing to "strike down his
father to rule the galaxy with the Emporer." It won't happen
if he drops sport juggling, creativity, study, practice, fun,
showmanship or even passing.
Why can't Wes embrace all juggling activites?
Probably because the Sith Lord of the Month changed his mind.
Young Anakan, I mean Adrian, don't succomb to the dark sideS.
MD
Adrian Pole
almost like 'I said-'I find this....'
chasehenson
bit depressed about the juggling community. I think it is time to be
adults and move on from this discussion. Why doesn't everyone just take a
deep breath, juggle for a minute, and try to save a bit of dignity? I'm
disappointed.
Chase
Daniele Caselli
> I think you guys take juggling (and yourselves) way too seriously.
> I'm disappointed.
Me too, as I already said on his co-tenant's [1] topic [2].
Dan
[1] http://www.jugglingdb.com/news/rightpane.php?group=1&id=195541
[2]
http://jugglingdb.com/news/thread.php?group=1&offset=120&thread=163355&id=193332
lutkus
> If I recall correctly, Wes was inspired/mentored, in part, by
.
> Lord Garfield,
Really? Inspired, perhaps. Mentored, I'm not so sure (unless attending
two WJF conventions counts as mentoring).
> Count me in the camp that doesn't see Wes as "very creative."
You are welcome to your opinion.
> He does some new things with common manipulation props, but
> from his anti video, I would expect him to put a TON of time
> into something other than clubs, rings, balls, diablo, etc.
Was the ball funnel ring routine he win the IJA juniors with too mundane?
I can think of videos or performances involving the following props:
ball funnel ring
table legs
cup and ball
matches
volleyballs
cigar boxes
clubs
rings
balls
top spinning
diabolo
yo-yo
inflatable exercise balls
I suppose most of these are ordinary props. And none of them can make a
person creative (or not), but this list is much larger than the prop list
of your average juggler. (Note: David Cain is not your average juggler
either)
> When he starts juggling water with plungers or putting down
> say, 25% of his future footage on with new props, then, we
> will place more value on his position on originality.
Are you saying the only way a person can be original is by using original
props? Also, who are "we"?
> However, it won't happen if he is willing to "strike down his
> father to rule the galaxy with the Emporer."
Why makes you think he would ever be willing to do that?
> Why can't Wes embrace all juggling activites?
Such as juggling water with plungers? He embraces what he wants to
embrace. What's wrong with that? I believe he went out of his way to
state that he has no problem with people who embrace other things.
--
Jeff Lutkus
rhalf
>
> Wow, I thought this whole thing was funny a couple of days ago--now I am a
> bit depressed about the juggling community. I think it is time to be
> adults and move on from this discussion. Why doesn't everyone just take a
> deep breath, juggle for a minute, and try to save a bit of dignity? I'm
> disappointed.
>
> Chase
>
I see constructive discussion is for kids...
This whole thing is an interviev where in your section [No comment] is
visible.
mc1703
grow up
Krscendus
much respect for many jugglers i once admired on videos. I can't
believe how many petty disputes are in the background of something so
fun and beautiful as juggling. Like mc1703 said... grow up people
Jason Perry
>
> Art? Sport? Business? Truth be told, it is probably in the middle
> somewhere.
You heard it here first - Steven Ragatz believes that juggling is a sport.
Who'd a thunk it?
Jason.
Steven Ragatz
>
> Steven Ragatz wrote:
> >
> > Art? Sport? Business? Truth be told, it is probably in the middle
> > somewhere.
>
> You heard it here first - Steven Ragatz believes that juggling is a sport.
> Who'd a thunk it?
>
> Jason.
>
Hey, that's not fair! To many people it is a sport! I don't deny them
that.
I just happen to think it is kind of a silly sport. After all, grown
tough-men playing with bean bags and plastic bowling pins...
Steven Ragatz
Luke Burrage
> I just happen to think it is kind of a silly sport. After all, grown
> tough-men playing with bean bags and plastic bowling pins...
>
Grown men or grownup men?
Steven Ragatz
Well, try not to blow things out of proportion. People are going to be
people no mater what their vocational choice may be, even if that happens
to be juggling. I wouldn't be too judgmentally harsh on someone just
because their online persona didn't meet with your expectations. They are
still the same fun and beautiful jugglers that you saw on the videos, just
with a little added touch of reality.
Videos hide performance flaws as well as personality ones.
Steven Ragatz
ultimatewannabe
Now a facist is forcing us to "grow up." I'll have no part in that good
sir. Art/sport/fun/whatever but juggling is certainly not for people who
are "grown up." :)
Mike
M Nicoll
> Now a facist is forcing us to "grow up." I'll have no part in that good
> sir. Art/sport/fun/whatever but juggling is certainly not for people who
> are "grown up." :)
>
> Mike
>
I'm not sure recursive hyperbolic ranting arguments are a thing of
childhood either though; kids just resort to violence and then forget
about it.
It's far cooler to just say nothing about any of it, however people have
to see you being cool saying nothing, which is irritatingly futile on-line
when no one knows or cares whether or not you're there.
Mark - retroactively saying nothing in an exceedingly cool manner.
simat
All Ady said was that Wes's personality seems to have changed. He didn't
condone Jason's interviewing style at all. You seem to be trying to prove
Jason is wrong by pointing out his aggresive interviewing style rather
than arguing against the point he was trying to make.
Doyen Dean
his foot in his mouth. I can see how he could object to it. The way
garfield kept steering the conversation toward dangerous ground was
entertaining from a readers perspective, though. How does he DO that! The
evil intelligence there is startling! ;-)
Sondre Øverby
There is one juggler I have not lost any respect for through any of the
sport vs art discussions, this one included, and you can guess once who
that is.
Whoever guesses it on first try gets to call me anything of his or hers
choice.
GLF00
>
>
> There is one juggler I have not lost any respect for through any of the
> sport vs art discussions, this one included, and you can guess once who
> that is.
>
You've got me really curious, Sondre. Would it be Jason Garfield?
Dave Barnes
>
> Krscendus wrote:
> >
> > Ever since I've started reading this discussion group i've lost so
> > much respect for many jugglers i once admired on videos. I can't
> > believe how many petty disputes are in the background of something so
> > fun and beautiful as juggling. Like mc1703 said... grow up people
> >
> >
>
>
>
> There is one juggler I have not lost any respect for through any of the
> sport vs art discussions, this one included, and you can guess once who
> that is.
The only way is up?
jani
My instincts say that this is a bit like I told Ewan that I haven't lost
any respect I had for him during Bungay.
jani
ultimatewannabe
I'm guessing his name is Sondre.
Sondre Øverby
That did in fact have me laughing quite a bit. And yes, I understood your
sarcasm.
Now I am worried if it was NOT sarcasm and I DID get it wrong... Dammit.
But you get to call me something either way.
Sondre Øverby
>
> Sondre Øverby wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > There is one juggler I have not lost any respect for through any of the
> > sport vs art discussions, this one included, and you can guess once who
> > that is.
> >
>
> You've got me really curious, Sondre. Would it be Jason Garfield?
>
>
>
Ok, Adrian got there before you on msn, but you'll get to call me
something too.
Hmm, it looks like I am giving these away almost for free nowadays...
well, people were stealing them before.
ultimatewannabe
Fun: both to laugh at and with. :)
Sondre Øverby
Yes!
Little Paul
Baby!
For you and meeeeeee
-Paul
--
paulseward.com - a photo a day for 2008
100jugglers.org - 100 pieces of signed juggling promotional material
Fabio Pinna
1) Dead Horse Kicking is the new national art/sport/fun/whatever for
rec.juggling
2) Steven Ragatz is the greatest person ever [1]
Fabio.
[1]Seriously. No irony intended. The more I read your writings, mr Ragatz,
the more I feel that everybody reading this group has something to learn
from you.[2]
[2] Flattery Intended.[3]
[3] Fabio. Can't finish a post without a sign.
Fabio Pinna
> I can think of videos or performances involving the following props:
[cut]
Bucket kicking. You are forgetting the bucket kicking.
How can you forget the bucket kicking!!!
Now, everybody please stand up for bucket kicking!
For great justice! (and bucket kicking)
Fab.
Off to kick some buckets.
Fabio Pinna
> It seems like the sold purpose of this interview is to force wes to put
> his foot in his mouth. I can see how he could object to it. The way
> garfield kept steering the conversation toward dangerous ground was
> entertaining from a readers perspective, though. How does he DO that! The
> evil intelligence there is startling! ;-)
After BJC 2007, I recall somebody writing, in regards of Jason skills as a
performer, that "he is able to play an audience like a fine-tuned
instrument".
This is truer and truer. Is "truer" an actual word?
Fabio.
Trying to find purposes to otherwise useless posts. His owns.
Little Paul
>
> Now, everybody please stand up for bucket kicking!
But is bucket kicking an art or a sport?
-Paul
Assuming it means something other than "death" in your part
of the world.
Fabio Pinna
>
> On 2008-05-30, Fabio Pinna <got...@gmail.com.nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > Now, everybody please stand up for bucket kicking!
>
> But is bucket kicking an art or a sport?
Now, this is a most interesting question. I definitely[2] think we should
give up on our social life, in favor of asking that question over and over
all around the net. We should then spread the debate upon every video
posted on every juggling not/related forum, and maybe start a flamewar or
two, just for good measure.
Since we don't want to leave people around here with nothing to do. They
get dangerous when left to their own thinking. So, if you don't mind, I
would like to keep for myself the right to reopen the debate when it
eventually settles.
To make up for this, we can arrange so that you will be the only one
qualified to feed the trolls. I heard there is much demand for such
trolls, nowadays. At least, it seems so for the ever increasing number of
them.
Fabio
Bucket kicking or daisy pushing is not an Italian common. Here we mostly
say "tirare le cuoia" (pulling the leather, literally). Bucket kicking, in
this case, is referred to the literal action took by Wes in a video of
his, where he ran over and INTO a stack of buckets, with much delight of
the audience, which would thereby demand more bucket kicking. [1]
[1] Please appreciate the circular shape of my sentence, thanks.
[2] http://www.d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com/ made me giggle.
Daniele Caselli
>
> **This** whole thread brought me to two conclusions:
>
> 1) Dead Horse Kicking is the new national art/sport/fun/whatever for
Fabio where were you in December 2007 [1]?
[1] http://www.jugglingdb.com/news/rightpane.php?group=1&id=180503
You might take into consideration to resurrect with your brilliant sarcasm
that topic too...
Daniele
Fabio Pinna
> Fabio where were you in December 2007 [1]?
> [1] http://www.jugglingdb.com/news/rightpane.php?group=1&id=180503
I don't really remember. But I remember that topic, and I remember
consciously chosing not to answer. It wasn't fun anyway.
> You might take into consideration to resurrect with your brilliant sarcasm
> that topic too...
Aww, this was not resurrection, latest post was yesterday.
"Nurturing entropy" is a better nomenclature, I think.
Fab
Unfunny poster of the year.