Re: New American Martial Art discovered!

"Mike" <mkorneck@xxxxxx> wrote
It's not a semantics trick. You bringing in Sigman here is quite
confounding. We are talking about the phraud stating "...incorporate
judo in it's entirety..."

And I opined that the concept wasn't original to him- and gave three names
of people who are both well-known (in the field) and share that concept- one
of which is Sigman to some degree (he hasn't stated it in quite that way),
and that opinion of his voiced in my hearing in person.
I also know Don Miller a very little bit, and know of Mario Napoli by
reputation and report.

And then someone started talking about the "...possibility of
applying ...".

As I say, Sigman didn't state it in quite that way, so I was reserved in my
report of his position. He is perfectly capable of stating it for himself,
and I would presume to put words in his mouth.
It was trying to get away from youse guys' preoccupation with finding one
exception to somehow disprove the validity of the understood generality. An
exception simply proves the validity of the basic premise as a useful guide.

Talk about a *look over there whilse I sweep this under the rug*
trick! I stated that the two were not anywhere near equivalent. One
phrase used words such as *entirety* and the other one *possibility,
applying*. If trying to call those two equivalent is not an attempt at
a semantics trick ... I don't know what is ...

Oh please!
It's not a principle of physics, it's an understood generality with obvious
exceptions- they're not going to be speaking Japanese, so it can't be in
it's ENTIRETYduh.

Uhh right. We were talking about *discussing* not demonstrations.

Yeah; the demonstration would be far more suasive than relating the theory
and defending it to critique` for theory/process/conclusion based on no
common experiences.

I'm the only one in this conversation with any actual study in the field.
So, that makes it okay?

Well, yeah.

.....if you ask yourself the same question 100
times, are you going to claim that 100 out of 100 practictioners agree
with you?

If I can cite 3 or 4 credible people in the field, and a number of systems
that agree with me, and reflecting the breadth and expanse of my
experiences; yup (given that I would never make that claim)

I mean no offense when I say that you have little to no experience at
formulating a precise, logical argument.

I take none-
given that we're doing it in an imprecise medium with no opportunity for
demonstration, no common vocabulary, or an agreed-upon body of information
nor authority.

Oh, and by the way ...I've got plenty of experience getting punched.

yes; that's why I'm so convinced that a physical demonstration would
instantly show you what we're all talking about.

Yeah, it's wishy washy as it was explained to me. It means all things
that have to do with fighting ...ok, gotcha. That's what I study.

Yes; unless you exclude weapons, like the mma-guys do; or multiples, as the
sporting sorts do; or have prohibited targets/techniques; or no history of
the things guys figured out over their lifetimes of study and experience.
Just to complicate matters; 'Silat' also means the lightning flash- the
jagged shape is reminiscent of the kris, so it also can mean the 'blade'. It
also can mean the 'instant expression of power', as with a lightning flash.

You don't speak enough of the various languages to opine otherwise.
You know ... *I could* say ..."You don't know what languages I speak
or don't speak."

We've pretty much established that it doesn't include Chinese or much in the
way of SEAsian tongues.

If I was a CHI practictioner, you would accept such an argument as
valid.

Nope- what's on the floor counts, all else is commentary.

You know that he's read alot of material and can regurgitate it. You
also know that he's a phraud. He's admitted to being a liar and such.

A man can lie about one thing and not about others- often commensurate with
what he's most familiar with and what he's not. A man can lie at one time,
and not at others. He can lie for one reason and not lie under different
circumstances.
I know it's important to you academic guys when you're publishing
professional papers, but that's not the context here.

I'm assuming you meant
"evasive in speech"
and *not*
"the use of an unnecessarily large number of words to express an
idea.",
which is the first definition webster gave me.

All of that and more- include lie to you direct.

Tho I would argue that most CHI men do the latter. It's all part of
the attempt to appear to be authorative... create a jargon.

it's just specialized- the same reason for jargon in any study/practice.
Unless you learn the jargon, there's little common ground for discussion-
the words won't have any meaning to you, so any conclusions you draw will be
in error.

Ahh, but the discourse should have concerned you. It's an illustration
of the character of the phraud.

Don't mistake character for skill- perhaps he learned to fight because he's
an irritating prick. He can continue to be an irritating prick as long as he
fights well. In order to learn anything from him, it's not necessary to
emulate being an irritating prick, but it is useful to listen to his ideas
about fighting.

And since in my experience, one CHI man will never denounce another
CHI man (there's that fragile house of cards again!), it was no
surprise to me that you didn't voice an opinion then.

Gee; do you play the ingenue` in the local theatre group, or what?
You have all these assumptions and expectations more common in teenage
brownbelts.

It is necessary for you to be able to formulate, discuss and, if
necessary, repostulate opinions on other topics if you want your
opinion on other things to be held to be credible.

Yeah; but not necessarily about aircraft carriers.
I know it's hard for you googlejocks to believe, but I am not familiar with
any way to definitively opine as to the existence of Chinese aircraft
carriers one way or the other.

--
Chas
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why do the Mormons bother with this newsgroup?
    ... Does the poster think that the LDS sends out its ... You of course have every right to your opinion. ... do you think that you are acting as a Christian ... >> No, but you have, if you mistake mistaken belief for a lie. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Why do the Mormons bother with this newsgroup?
    ... In my opinion those at the top know it isnt. ... > containing the posts that reminded me so very much of Jeff Shirton. ... > Phil, that's difficult to do. ... >>> No, but you have, if you mistake mistaken belief for a lie. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: This Dave in History - June 23
    ... difference of your opinion, it's natural for you to call it a lie. ... I have repeatedly stated that I do watch Letterman. ... funny especially when they're repeated ad nauseum. ...
    (alt.fan.letterman)
  • Re: This Dave in History - June 23
    ... difference of your opinion, it's natural for you to call it a lie. ... I have repeatedly stated that I do watch Letterman. ... funny especially when they're repeated ad nauseum. ...
    (alt.fan.letterman)