Steveontheloose,

If you're accusing me of being jj, I am not.

He would probably be horrified, I'm just a lowly pro/ammer who wouldn't trade my pro for the world.

Belle

Yes, I am one of those posters who is tired of your "unrelenting grips about pro/am" but not for the reasons that you think. You are certainly entitled to your opinions about pro/am - but to put them out as defintive facts/conclusions about pro/am is simply not something that my little brain can understand.

I'm confused by your posts where you assume that just becuase someone hasn't "proved" B it somehow means that "A" is definitely proved.
But then again, as I said, I'm a really, really stupid person, so please, explain to me the rules of logic that you are using or direct me to a book where I can learn about the rules of logic that you seem to follow. Otherwise, I just can't understand why we should all swallow what you write. What book can you direct me too? Thanks.

As I have pointed out many times, all of my statements about pro/am are based on experience and observation - 12 years of it.

I have no idea what you are writing about in your second paragraph. If you believe that I am making an invalid argument then please share with me what you believe that argument to be.

But, as you have written, you are a very stupid person so it may not be possible for you to explain yourself.

Give my best wishes to everyone in Stupidland.



jj

Yes, as I've said, I'm not smart. So, it makes it difficult me someone like me (and possibly others) to take what you post as "truth." Thank you for being so tolerant about my lack of education and being so kind about it. (that was supposed to be sarcasm in case I didn't convey that properly.)

Do you have a book that you can recommend where I can learn about the methods of reasoning upon which you rely? Thank you.

Your post comes across as a whine.



jj

Hmm - well, as I'm a pro-ammer, and by your definition, pro-ammers are foolish whiners who can't dance, did you expect anything different? People tend to get what they expect.

Actually, I believe I pointed out that your posts amount to little more than whines.

Yes, some amateurs who spend too much money on pro/am competition are foolish.



jj

You've done a good amount of whining yourself on this subject. What you fail to understand is that for many of us pro-amateurs it's not ABOUT competitions. It's about all of those things you yourself claim to be of value. You cannot admit that your point of view is narrow-minded. You are insulting people you assume don't exist. (And that is just ignorant).

claim to do pro/am. If you're taking lessons by yourself from a teacher then you're simply a student.

My point of view is informed because I have competed in both pro/am and amateur events. Have you?

Pro/am cannot possibly be about the things that I value in dance because, as I stated clearly, the joy of dancing comes from improving as a couple. Ballroom and Latin are partner dancing, after all.

When you work only with a pro you are not developing as part of a couple. In terms of ballroom, you're pretty much nothing but a consumer.

You can try to insult me as much as you want. You haven't earned enough of my respect for me to care.



jj

Clary,
I doubt whether you will get a direct answer from jofjonesboro as to your question about a book. He seems to be avoiding the question.
It's been a while, but back when I was a student, Copi and Cohen was a classic introductory textbook for logic. It discussed syllogisms, fallacies, etc. - the elements of logic.