No, I won't dance with you because...


You may be wondering why I didn't want to dance with you. Probably you weren't wondering at all and didn't think anything of it but if you were then here is the reason.

No, I won't dance with you because I'm too drunk.
No, I won't dance with you because I'm too sober.
No, I won't dance with you because I'm too sweaty.
No, I won't dance with you because there are too many people on the dance floor.
No, I won't dance with you because there aren't enough people on the dance floor.
No, I won't dance with you because this track is half way through already.
No, I won't dance with you because this track is just starting and I can't tell yet whether I can dance to it.
No, I won't dance with you because the music is too fast.
No, I won't dance with you because the music is too slow.
No, I won't dance with you because the music is too obscure.
No, I won't dance with you because the music is too obvious.
No, I won't dance with you because the music is a charleston  and I have no idea how to dance charleston.
No, I won't dance with you because the music calls for balboa  and I have no idea how to dance balboa.
No, I won't dance with you because the music is latin and I have no idea how to dance latin.
No, I won't dance with you because the music is blues and I don't know you well enough to dance blues.
No, I won't dance with you because the music is 3/4 and I have no idea how to waltz. Neither do you. We'd look ridiculous.
No, I won't dance with you because I know this track and it starts OK but it has a long challenging drum solo in the middle.
No, I won't dance with you because I don't know this track but it might have a long challenging drum solo in the middle.
No, I won't dance with you because the music seems OK but the last one this DJ played started off OK but then went horrid.
No, I won't dance with you because the music seems OK and so were the last few the DJ played but this DJ specialises in ambushing dancers with horrid undanceable tracks and I bet this will be the one.
No, I won't dance with you because I hate this DJ so much that I won't dance to anything they play.
No, I won't dance with you because you are the DJ and I have told everybody how much I hate your music so it would be hypocritical for me to dance with you.
No, I won't dance with you because I've danced with you too many times already and I don't know any more moves and I'm afraid you'd be bored.
No, I won't dance with you because I've danced with you too many times already and I don't know any more moves and I'm afraid I'd be bored.
No, I won't dance with you because I asked you before and you said no.
No, I won't dance with you because I asked you before and you said you were too tired but then straight after I saw you dancing with somebody else.
No, I won't dance with you because I asked you before and you said the music was too fast but then straight after I saw you dancing with somebody else.
No, I won't dance with you because you're too ugly.
No, I won't dance with you because you're too beautiful.
No, I won't dance with you because you're not a very good dancer.
No, I won't dance with you because you're much too good a dancer.
No, I won't dance with you because you look a bit grumpy when you're dancing.
No, I won't dance with you because you get too excitable when you're dancing.
No, I won't dance with you because you're wearing high heels and are clearly not serious about dancing.
No, I won't dance with you because you're wearing patent pumps and are clearly far too serious about dancing.
No, I won't dance with you because you have scary tattoos and/or piercings.
No, I won't dance with you because you look a bit boring.
No, I won't dance with you because your clothes are too shabby. 
No, I won't dance with you because your clothes are too smart.
No, I won't dance with you because you're not wearing enough clothes.
No, I won't dance with you because you asked me and I wanted to be the one to ask you.
No, I won't dance with you because you've seen me at several previous events and you never asked me before so it's a bit late now.
No, I won't dance with you because you agreed to dance with that other guy who I don't like.
No, I won't dance with you because you refused to dance with that other guy who's a friend of mine.
No, I won't dance with you because you've been dancing with guys who are really bad dancers.
No, I won't dance with you because you've been dancing with guys who are really good dancers.
No, I won't dance with you because you've been dancing with old ugly guys.
No, I won't dance with you because you've been dancing with young handsome guys.
No, I won't dance with you because the last time we danced it didn't go very well.
No, I won't dance with you because you look a bit like somebody I danced with and it didn't go very well and I'm not sure if it was you or not but just to be on the safe side I'd better say no.
No, I won't dance with you because the last time we danced you headed off afterwards just a little bit too abruptly at the end.
No, I won't dance with you because the last time we danced you gave me a helpful tip which obviously was not meant to be a criticism but certainly felt like one.
No, I won't dance with you because I looked you up on facebook and I didn't like something I saw there.
No, I won't dance with you because I find you annoying.
No, I won't dance with you because the last time I approached you to ask you to dance with me you ignored me and went off to dance with this other guy even though he was already dancing with somebody else.

I hope that makes it clear why I didn't want to dance with you. In case you were wondering.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nailing Hunt's lies

Here is the soundbite which Hunt has been repeating ad nauseam: "And at the moment we have an NHS where if you have a stroke at the weekends, you're 20% more likely to die. That can't be acceptable." Sounds quite impressive? I tweeted him to ask for evidence and got no reply so I decided to look for my own. It wasn't hard to find. I'll deal with the best and most recent example. The headline finding from this paper is that patients admitted at weekends with a stroke diagnosis have an increased 7-day mortality of 19%, apparently just as Hunt claims: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4487251/ The 7-day mortality for week-end admissions is 12.9% and for week-day admissions is 11.1% and if you factor in comorbidities etc. this gives you an adjusted mortality odds ratio of 1.19. Just as Hunt says. But let's look more closely. At some numbers buried in the text of the paper and not even given a p value, even though they are probably the most st...
Read more

Sex and gender

This post is just here because I find myself having to make the same arguments again and again on twitter so in future I'm just going to link to this. Do I know what I'm talking about? I was a psychiatrist in the National Health Service for thirty years. That means I qualified as a medical doctor and then had post-graduate training, which naturally included some material on human development and sex and gender. I also have two doctoral degrees in human genetics, an MD and a PhD, and have been an author on hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, mostly on human genetics. Because of my research in genetics I am an Honorary Professor at two different London universities. My bio is here: http://www.davecurtis.net/dcurtis.html and the publications can be viewed here: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=Vrr4Ig0AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate Do I do research in sexual development in humans? No. Do I understand it? Yes. I've read the stuff that ...
Read more

SITUATIONAL JUDGEMENT TEST - example ranking question

Example Ranking Question You are in charge of a large national organisation responsible for assessing the abilities of all the country's newly qualified doctors and matching them to appropriate employment. Shortly before distributing the results and final allocations you become aware that there is a problem with the marking system which you have outsourced. Rank in order the following actions in response to this situation (1= Most appropriate; 5= Least appropriate) A. Cross your fingers and hope it will all be OK. Probably nobody will mind too much. B.  Send out the incorrect marks and allocations then follow with an email saying you will get medical schools to check all the papers and have another go at it. C.  As above but attempt to shift some of the blame onto one of the candidates by implying that their smudgy pencil confused the marking machine so really it's all their fault. D.  Admit that things may not have been perfect but undertake to try to do better ...
Read more

How to be a dualist

How to be a dualist David Curtis UCL Genetics Institute, University College London Centre for Psychiatry, Queen Mary University of London d.curtis@ucl.ac.uk   Is dualism really that bad? One of my reasons for writing this is that people seem to think it’s not OK to be a dualist. There’s this notion that dualism is somehow a thoroughly disreputable position. People go “Ah but that’s dualist” or say “Cartesian dualism” as a euphemism for “nonsense”. What I’m going to claim here is that dualism is in fact intellectually quite respectable and defensible, as long as you do it right. Maybe you still won’t tell other people that you’re a dualist but at least you might feel a bit better about yourself. Where to draw the line Saying “mind-body dualism” is risky because the word “mind” is often used to refer to mental activities such as thinking, judging and remembering. It’s perfectly obvious that these are activities of the brain and if we start trying to split them off f...
Read more

Why GWAS's are evil

OK, yes, I know that genome-wide association studies have identified some important genetic effects but there are some important downsides too. I truthfully do not know whether the benefits have outweighed the costs. Why am I saying this? (None of this is supposed to be original. Conversely, I am not going to go to the trouble to find the myriad of people who may have said the same thing first. So sue me. I think that's what blogs are for?) Here are some pertinent points: Nobody believes anything if it's not in a GWAS Studies which would previously have been judged to give perfectly respectable evidence to implicate a candidate gene are nowadays completely ignored because the stupid GWAS missed said gene. People don't believe a candidate gene study which yields a corrected p value of 0.001 derived from 20 markers but they do believe a GWAS which produces one p value of 10^-8. There is no logic in this position. But a lot of people take this attitude. At a recent confe...
Read more