nanushka
Senior Member-
Posts
3,173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Blogs
Store
Everything posted by nanushka
-
I would guess Hee Seo might do it? (Has she in the past?) ETA: Actually no, it's not listed in her rep. I would think it'd be a good fit (thought I'm not a particular fan of either her or the ballet).
-
They've done Giselle for two years running now, and that's one that's typically been given every third year (or so) off, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.
-
On June 25, in the 2018-19 season thread, I did a comparison between the schedule at that point and as originally announced, and here's what I found:
-
Yes it is. It's in the "Barber, Broadway and Balanchine" program. (It wasn't originally but has been listed for some time now and was previously discussed in the 2018-19 season thread.)
-
Count mine among the hearty endorsements of the Goldner books. They were instrumental in my becoming a total Balanchine devotee.
-
Furthermore, why is it primarily Waterbury rather than the alleged perpetrators — Finlay, et al — who, according to @On Pointe, gets the blame for "hurting a lot of women" by bringing this suit? If Waterbury does indeed have standing to sue (and I understand that is still in dispute by some here), then it should follow that blame for potential negative effects of that suit might fall on them.
-
I'm not sure why it matters in the least what her particular reasons were — what matters first and foremost, so long as she wasn't breaking any laws, is what she found there — but as has already been explained on this thread it's very conceivable that she preferred to read and respond to emails on a laptop rather than on her phone, perhaps knowing that there would be a good number she'd need to deal with in a thorough manner (e.g. professional emails pertaining to her modeling work, etc.). That's just one possible explanation.
-
I note that you say three different things here about your interpretation of their words: (1) that it's "clearly" the right one; (2) that it's "just as likely" the right one; and (3) that it's "more likely" the right one. I find (2) barely plausible, but I can understand thinking that. (1) and (3) seem to me to be completely unsupported at this point. Also, just because one is joking about rape doesn't mean one is "plotting rape." That's an exaggeration of how others are reading the quotation, I think.
-
Did these women really say in their posts "that nothing was wrong"? That's not how I read their words. It's very possible to express love for and loyalty to and gratitude toward an organization (or a family, or a school, or a community, or any other complex social group) while still recognizing that there are problems there — even very serious problems that one would like to see remedied. I would imagine many of us could relate to the experience of having such complex feelings about groups to which we belong.
-
The first and third week casting sheets seem to have been missing from the website all day — or, at least, the links on the "Casting" page haven't been working for me. (Week two has been there.) I get a page that says, "Sorry, the page you requested cannot be found."
-
I fail to see how any of that is relevant to the question of whether (as you asserted) “the lawsuit was written deliberately to invoke [evoke] this exact response” — i.e. the confusion of “student” and “former student.” Also, for (1) and (2) the company may well have had a heads up that the lawsuit/changes were coming, thus provoking their action. Your argument relies on the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy.
-
How can we judge whether the argument is specious without access to the evidence (which has not yet been presented)? ETA: To clarify, I believe the "bad acts" Waterbury accuses NYCB of knowing about and condoning are not (or not only) the acts committed directly against her. The company is accused of having known about and condoned much other behavior that, she claims, created an environment in which they felt they could do to her as they allegedly did. That argument doesn't depend on NYCB having seen or known about the specific text messages, etc. that are referred to in the case.