Thanks Dave for the suggestion.  I will resist the "becketization" 
label, as I would "becketation" or "becketoriation."  I would favor a 
subtitle something like (Variant from Becket position).  All of which 
begs the question of: Is this the same dance?  Lots of folks might 
argue that the starting figure is a key characteristic of a dance.  I 
would guess that the standard of recognizing a distinctive 
sequence--without regard to the start or end point--as a single 
author's work would relegate a number of dances to the category of 
"variants"  of dances written earlier with a different start 
point.  I'm sure there are examples of this.

Just a thought.

*********

At 12:02 AM 2/6/2010, Laur wrote:
>Thanks Dave that cleared it up for us (at least Greg and I).  I 
>didn't want to change the name, or the author, but I wanted those 
>who cared to know that it wasn't in its original form.
>
>Laurie
>
>--- On Sat, 2/6/10, Dave Colestock <contradancerdave at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>From: Dave Colestock <contradancerdave at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Callers] Name of a dance
>To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers at sharedweight.net>
>Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 2:42 AM
>
>The sequence is still the same, no matter if it is becket or 
>improper.  Where you start the dance within the sequence should not 
>matter, for credit or name purposes.  Therefore the credit for the 
>dance still goes to the original author.  When introduced you can 
>simply name the dance and say it is the "becket-ized" version of the 
>dance, and credit the original name and author.  It is the same 
>dance, no matter where in the sequence you start it.  Most all 
>improper dances can be turned into becket by starting at a different 
>part of the dance, and some becket dances can be turned 
>improper.  Sometimes that will change the feel of the dance.  One of 
>my dances, "Lizzie's Delight", was written as a becket dance, but I 
>have called it as an improper dance, too.
>
>Dave Colestock
>Harrisburg, PA
>
>
>--- On Sat, 2/6/10, Laur <lcpgr at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>From: Laur <lcpgr at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Callers] Name of a dance
>To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers at sharedweight.net>
>Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 2:02 AM
>
>
>Hey Greg et al.
>
>Agreed with you - I called it tonight, it seemed to go well with a 
>half and half crowd.  I referred to it as Culver City Becket, a 
>variation of Culver City Contra by James Hutson (excuse me I don't 
>have the author's name in front of me).
>
>Laurie
>----
>Looking at this dance I have to admit that I am more intrigued by the
>Beckett version as suggested by David.  I like having an easy dance
>to introduce the idea of the Becket formation.  I also like having an
>easy dance that begins with "long lines forward and back."
>
>How should I credit the dance if I call it as a Becket?  Is there a
>standard etiquette for this?
>
>How about "Contra Culver City" for the Becket version with switched A
>and B parts?
>
>**************
>
>At 01:49 PM 1/28/2010, you wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TnURscEvpc&feature=PlayList&p=992537F69CC7EC
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Callers mailing list
>Callers at sharedweight.net
>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>_______________________________________________
>Callers mailing list
>Callers at sharedweight.net
>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Callers mailing list
>Callers at sharedweight.net
>http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers