People who live in glass houses should'nt throw rocks!!

[marshallbd]

I think everythings been said that needs to, so unless mr. Ku would care to educate us, I'm suggesting this be locked and everyone move on.

Yeah!!!! I'm with him!!!! :asian:

 

[Bester]

The problem is that their presence helped ligitimize many frauds. As you state, they had great knowledge. People would come to this board to hear what they and others like them would say. But so did many frauds who wanted others to marvel at their greatness.

Many individuals like to marvel at their greatness. Vanity is one of the weaknesses in man. It also takes many forms. Those who did the pursuit here, seem to have also suffered from it.

A person who gives himself an eighth dan does not do so in private. He wants others to admire his greatness. So he goes out and does things to get that attention. Posting on this board as if they were martial arts masters is one of the ways they get the attention they so desperatly crave but do not deserve.

Another way is to pose as an expert on such forums, without the real world credibility to back it up.

And they dispense advice and such as if they were eighth dan masters, but they do not have the experience to back it up. These types of people are a major source of bad martial arts knowledge running around. They do not know what they are talking about, but that does not stop them. Take a look at David Schultz's first thread he started. He tries to tell people who speak Japanese fluently that their definition of "soke" is wrong!!!!

I read that thread recently. People who do not understand a language have no right misusing it. How many American martial artist are there screaming "Kia"? Do they realize they are yelling 'yell'? Then again, how many experts do forms without knowing more than the dance steps?

On martial talk, these people can not be challenged when they make statements like this. They can be challenged in the Horror stories forum, but some have decided to just ignore the threads that the questions about them are raised and state that the matter was old news in any other thread it was mentioned- and then complain to the moderators that they were being "ambushed" in other threads.

I've read the rules. They do not forbid challenging. Only "fixations". Too many good threads here seem to have been locked after turning into little more than school yard bullying. It was a shame, as the discussions had been very interesting, before being ruined.

Imagine if we could get Dan Insanto to post here. Can you imagine how many people would come here just to read the posts by a guy who best knew Bruce Lee? But, there would probably be a few Virtual Tough Guys who would also come here jsut to post about how they were Lee's true student, unknown to anyone else. Think no one would believe them? I just saw a Rialian booth set up at Kashiwa station last Saturday. If people would believe that crud- they will believe anything.

That is true however regardless of the format. The difference here seems to be your example of Guro Dan uses a known quantity, where in the case of the fraud busting here, it seemed two unknowns were battling for supremacy.

So Insanto posts something about Lee. The fraud posts something else. Insanto takes offense because it is so wrong. He is not allowed to challenge the guy and expose him as a liar outside of one thread here in this forum. In every other thread, he can only give his side of the story and hope people understand that he is the only one telling the truth. But the fraud has more time on his hands and posts more and more. Now Insanto looks at a site that is well known because of the advice he gives on it, but the frauds are posting more disinformation than he can correct. So does he stick around or withdraw his participation?

A known quantity has the built in credibility to ride out such things. The unknowns devolve into a he-said/she-said battle royale.

Robert and the others were not as great as Dan Insanto, and they will be the first to tell you so. But there were people who thought martialtalk was a good site because they were willing to post here. Since the amount of fraudulance was getting more than they could cope with, and the rules prevented them from challenging people whenever they made comments based (supposably) on their skills and experiences, it was a natural choice to withdraw and let people who knew them know that they thought this place was more a source for bad information than good information.

Again however, that information is not readily visible. What good is information that is for the general well being, if it is kept in secret?

Sticking around, as you suggest, would only legitimize the frauds they could not expose or confront due to the rules.

I humbly disagree. Their polite presence would have done more to dispel than reinforce.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the public to educate themselves using all available resources. By withdrawing in such disorder and in such a negative way, it appears that the cries of persecution of the frauds was only reinforces, creating martyrs if you will, rather than showing them up to be the pathetic creatures they were.

 

[chufeng]

I'd like to clarify a couple of things.

First, I left of my own free will on "principle." I was not tossed or evicted.
I was warned twice, never suspended or banned (during the entire time I was here).
I rarely engaged in the type of exchange that is being attributed to "the YiLi's"

I won't rehash the past...you all are capable of reading through the posts yourself.

Granted, certain people were dogged in their quest to out the frauds...
Perhaps lines were crossed...ultimately, the liars were exposed...so those who cried that "the emporor isn't wearing any clothes" were right...but they are now gone.

I still disagree with a policy that puts "nice" over Truth. The "behind the scenes" things that took place I was rarely privy to...those who say that Rob Rousellot and the YiLi folks were in cahouts are wrong...other than Matt Stone, none of us ever met Rob...but we certainly could differentiate between BS and someone who knew what he was talking about (and having met and trained with his teacher, most of us knew that the system he practices is absolutely legitimate)...it is not unusual that we usually fell on the same side of an issue.

I asked to be admitted to the forums to stop the spin on "the YiLi's"...
I believe we, collectively, offered a lot...some of you agree, some of you are glad to be rid of us

Kendall dear, if you do not wish to read my posts and be closed mind that is fine.
You should spell my name properly. Parsons
Just like the Yili's you are afraid of me. You cannot attack me. You try, and I use logic and facts, and you use myth and hear say.
You cannot handle the truth.

Parsons...not a single YiLi student or instructor is afraid of you...take some medicine, it may help your paranoia.

Some say that WE can't let go of the past...Hello-o-o-o!!! Who put this thread up? Who drug YiLi's good name into it? Get over it.

I admit to bad-mouthing MT on another board...but it only amounts to my disagreement with MT's policy on pushing "nice" over Truth...I vented several months ago and have not brought it up again...I'm over it.

I don't expect I'll be posting much...but I did want to set the record straight.
Kaith, Thanks for offering me the opportunity to post.

chufeng

 

[Matt Stone]

I haven't posted in a very, very, very long time. I'm going to toss my 2 cents in, in addition to Chufeng's, to clarify things from my perspective... I took notes as I skimmed this craptacular thread, so my comments are in the order I was offended...

1 - I wasn't booted, banned, nor am I currently closely watched on other fora. If Bob can prove this, I invite him to do so.

2 - I wasn't "done in" as someone implied.

3 - I left on principle, something some folks who, thankfully, are none too active on the internet anymore, seemed then (and I suspect still are) in short supply of. I didn't break the rules, though I may well have bent a few.

4 - Why am I (or any of the others) "wrong" for having left? I left the board because I felt that it no longer met the standards I felt it had upheld when I first joined. Rather that stay and give myself an ulcer everytime I saw another post from a Chiduce or an ARK, I left. That eliminated the possibility of my finally losing it a la Falling Down and making an *** of myself. Best decision for both parties concerned.

5 - Rich Parsons - WTF are you talking about in regards to questions that "the Yilis" have yet to answer? Please, ask your questions here and I'll answer anything you like. I seem to recall making a similar offer to you elsewhere and elsewhen... But bear in mind, my answers may not be the ones you are looking for...

And Rich, we weren't "4 year olds taking our toys home and leaving." We made the mature decision to leave rather than continue to implicitly support policies we did not agree with. The decisions, actions, and policies in effect at that time were not to our liking. Would you rather we have stayed? What purpose would that have served? I don't see how that was to anyone's best interests - mine, Chufeng's, nor MT's.

6 - Bob - You alleged upthread that we were "milking the public." Care to elaborate how we are doing that? I'd love to hear your theories, and I'd love to see some proof...

7 - Rich Parsons - Down here on Planet Earth, you'll find that I'm not afraid of much, least of all you. I'm not afraid of you, nor any other entity on MT. If you would care to outline how it is you've come by this fallacy, I'd love to hear the theory. If your comment was a thinly veiled challenge, feel free to visit me up here in WA anytime to determine just how scared I am...

And I don't recall insulting you. I do recall not agreeing that I had done anything wrong and refusing to apologize just to make you happy. I apologize when I've done something wrong, and I have yet to be convinced that my actions in the past deserve an apology. If you don't like that, find a way to deal with it and let it go.

Sorry for the disruption folks. But in light of this thread and the fact that some of the "esteemed" staff here have chosen to drag my name through the dirt, I guess I'm baaaaack...

Enjoy.

And my name is Matt Stone... Not Mike. He's a fake ninja wannabe karate guy who made crap movies in the 80's. He's well known and internationally famous, too, but still a fake ninja nonetheless...

 

[Matt Stone]

Iterestingly enough, while cleaning up my account information (since I haven't been active here in so long), I found this post I made back on 8 February, inviting MT members to the 2nd NW Throwdown that several of us put on on 21 February (one of the nice things about www.bullshido.com is that members there like to get together in person, learn new things, test theories, and have a good time).

In reply to my post, Rich Parsons wrote this:

Glad to see you posting here Matt.

It sounds like fun. I wish you guys the best.

But then upthread on this thread he paints the picture of us being worthy only of his contempt.

Now, back in December 03, Rich jumped into a discussion between ARK, Chufeng and myself on www.canamma.com. ARK wanted to initiate a dialogue between himself, Chufeng and I in order to put to rest whatever difference we might have. We were chugging along nicely, and then as a new moderator, I decided to lock the thread (which was in a restricted access forum anyway) as I felt it had nothing to contribute to anything at all. We had all said our peace, buried the hatchets, and decided to go our own ways. I don't recall any of the issues regarding ARK being brought up by Chufeng nor I, and the thread in question was started by ARK.

Here's the URL: http://www.canamma.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1658 I'm not sure if anyone will be able to read it or not (restricted access forum). If you can't let me know. I'll see what I can do.

Anyway, right after I unlocked the thread and posted this message:

The past is buried, the horse is far beyond dead.

I locked this thread, then unlocked it... I'm going to give all parties the opportunity to just leave this alone and move on.

The time for these issues has passed. We either move forward, or in the future we lock every single thread started that even comes near these issues.

I think I understand how Kaith, et al, must have felt "back then."

Nobody appears to have a problem with ARK personally anymore. Let's proceed from there...

Rich Parsons took it upon himself to jump into the thread in order to chide me for having locked it in the first place. Apparently he wanted to have his say, and his panties got in a bunch because he wasn't allowed to hijack a thread that had nothing to do with him. After a bit, ARK posted this:

Well it would seem that this topic can now indeed be put to rest. Matt, perhaps it would be best for you to go ahead and lock it down as it seems to be drifting into conflicts on another topic with another poster. I did not intend for this thread to promote conflict, and certainly not issues of conflict with which I have no part.

As far as I'm concerned, past conflicts are over, peace and love for everybody.

Dave

It seemed we were free and clear from further ARK issue spawned controversy. But Rich kept on a'goin'... The thread lasted 5 pages. No cites of the alleged insults I made to Rich were ever forthcoming (nor do I care enough to search for them myself - he has a claim, he provides the evidence not me), and ultimately the thread was locked by a different mod (long after I had locked itand then unlocked it to allow Rich to vent his anger).

On page 4 of the thread, Rich admitted to deliberately baiting everyone just to see how much he could get away with. He apologized for this, but then went on to say he was trying to help us grow as people. I replied with this final post:

Rich -

Let me speak plainly here, if I may. No sarcasm, no attempt at wittiness, no humor. Straight shooting, nothing more. Then I'm not going to address this issue again. Period.

You don't know me from Adam. Where you presume to "show me" anything is just that - presumptious.

Given that you don't know me, you cannot assume that you know enough to state with any degree of certainty what I will or will not do, nor what I am or am not capable of. I have kept my statements confined to responding to or rebutting what you have said in your posts. It is something I have learned through my job (criminal law paralegal), and it is something I do every day. But you have tried to imply some kind of insight to what kind of person I am offline. Big error there.

This thread was about ARK, Chufeng and me. Not you. You jumped in where you were neither wanted nor needed. If you had a beef, it should have been handled elsewhere.

Now, as to my ability to admit my wrong doings... Go back to MT and look around, do some reading, and you'll see that not once, but several times, I went out of my way to admit my errors, to apologize for incorrect information, etc. Not my fault you missed those.

I am all about acknowledging my own shortcomings. Probably to a fault according to some folks who know me. I am also all about keeping myself straight, which is the only thing I think I bring to being a moderator. I am just as ready to critically examine myself, my art, my teacher, etc., as I am to examine anything or anyone else. But I do my absolute best to stick to the facts rather than stoop to cheap shots that are always easy to take (not implying you do this). I stick to exactly what I know or what I can show, nothing more.

Lastly, I harbor no further ill will toward you, and am actually looking forward to meeting you at the camp (I did Modern Arnis for a brief time, and would love to learn more). But stick to what you know, and wait to critique me until you know me better.

I think we are finished here...

And then Rob Broad locked the thread.

Rich - as it seems to always go, ball is in your court. I didn't bring things up, you dragged me into this, just like I told ARK I had let his issues go unless and until I got dragged into that.

And like in that locked thread at CanAm, I think we are finished here... At least I am, unless and until someone drags me back into the fray.

Have a nice Sunday.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I don't expect I'll be posting much...but I did want to set the record straight.
Kaith, Thanks for offering me the opportunity to post.

:asian:

1 - I wasn't booted, banned, nor am I currently closely watched on other fora. If Bob can prove this, I invite him to do so.

To the best of my knowledge, you are correct.

6 - Bob - You alleged upthread that we were "milking the public." Care to elaborate how we are doing that? I'd love to hear your theories, and I'd love to see some proof...

What I said was "Translation: Only the "Real Deal" can milk the public."
which was in responce to Mr. Ku's comment "They don't take kindly to pretenders milking the public." To clarify that exchange, Mr. Ku was refering to the idea that those with 'interesting' lineages were at best misleading, to at worst ripping off and harming the public. My response was intended as a reminder that even with the right paperwork, credentials and techniques there is still room for fraud and worse. It was -not- intended to suggest that he or his training partners were doing so.

 

[Matt Stone]

What I said was "Translation: Only the "Real Deal" can milk the public."
which was in responce to Mr. Ku's comment "They don't take kindly to pretenders milking the public." To clarify that exchange, Mr. Ku was refering to the idea that those with 'interesting' lineages were at best misleading, to at worst ripping off and harming the public. My response was intended as a reminder that even with the right paperwork, credentials and techniques there is still room for fraud and worse. It was -not- intended to suggest that he or his training partners were doing so.

Cool enough. No blood, no foul. Done deal, I shan't revisit it. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I'd like to clarify a couple of things.

First, I left of my own free will on "principle." I was not tossed or evicted.
I was warned twice, never suspended or banned (during the entire time I was here).
I rarely engaged in the type of exchange that is being attributed to "the YiLi's"

I won't rehash the past...you all are capable of reading through the posts yourself.

Granted, certain people were dogged in their quest to out the frauds...
Perhaps lines were crossed...ultimately, the liars were exposed...so those who cried that "the emporor isn't wearing any clothes" were right...but they are now gone.

I still disagree with a policy that puts "nice" over Truth. The "behind the scenes" things that took place I was rarely privy to...those who say that Rob Rousellot and the YiLi folks were in cahouts are wrong...other than Matt Stone, none of us ever met Rob...but we certainly could differentiate between BS and someone who knew what he was talking about (and having met and trained with his teacher, most of us knew that the system he practices is absolutely legitimate)...it is not unusual that we usually fell on the same side of an issue.

I asked to be admitted to the forums to stop the spin on "the YiLi's"...
I believe we, collectively, offered a lot...some of you agree, some of you are glad to be rid of us
Parsons...not a single YiLi student or instructor is afraid of you...take some medicine, it may help your paranoia.

Some say that WE can't let go of the past...Hello-o-o-o!!! Who put this thread up? Who drug YiLi's good name into it? Get over it.

I admit to bad-mouthing MT on another board...but it only amounts to my disagreement with MT's policy on pushing "nice" over Truth...I vented several months ago and have not brought it up again...I'm over it.

I don't expect I'll be posting much...but I did want to set the record straight.
Kaith, Thanks for offering me the opportunity to post.

chufeng

Chufeng,

Ok no one is afraid of me.

Matt started a thread. One of the questions was about the dead horse story. I still do not see how it relates.


As to stop bashing YiLi, if this is your wish, then please do not bash me nor the Mods nor the Admins. You state that truth out weighs the nice factor. I respect that you have a different view from that of the posted board.

Why were threads locked on this other board, that has less rules? Why was I told not to reply because I was hi-jacking threads over there? Why Was I told that I did not belong and was just plain wrong. Yet, it were these tactics that the MOds adn Admins were asking you and your friends to stop using. Leave it the thread in question and not run from thread to thread, nor stalk someone. I agree that maybe you personally did not do this. Yet, everyone seems bent on using the terms Mods and Admins without naming names. Therefore, I refer to YiLi and friends, and I am sorry if your skin is too thin, if you beleive you have not done such.

In essence I believe you and others behaved poorly. You do not. Yet, friends of friends keep beinging this issue up. If everyone just let the issue drop, told all their friends to let it drop, had no secret agenda, then maybe we can all get over this issue that will in my opinion never be resolved completely.

Why? You and friends believe that the Ends justify the means no matter how many people get hurt. I believe otherwise. In my opinion the tactics used were that of bullying and multiple opponents like wolves to get the vitum running in circles until an opening could be found. This might work some places. I just do not think it is best here. Once again different point of views that I do nto think will ever be resolved.

Yet, when everyone cries that we chased you out, and you your self point out that you left under your own. I thank you for this post. You see this points out that even though everyone thinks it is an Us versus Them, when there were individuals involved. I really wish people would just name the individuals involved, and not be generic and imply. Thereby my thin skin take affront to this action, and then replies in kind.

I know that we will most likely never see eye to eye. No matter how much we agree on the fraud issue. You and Your friends approach is different then mine. It reminds me of the cops who break into your house, destroy it and accidentally shot a family member because they were after a felon. Yet, they might have been on the wrong street or the inverted address. I know this is a setch for some, yet I see them as the same. If you can run rough shod, do you beleive the goverenment has the right to enter your house at will to find out the truth? Long philisophical discussion, like I said that we may never agree upon.

I do recognize that you and your friends have passion for the martial arts.

I also recognize that you have knowledge I do not have access too.

Yet, I was told on this board and off of it to stay out of you and your friends way, and being dismissed like only your opinion counts and that of others does not count. This is another area in which we differ. I believe your opinion and words do matter, even more because they differ from that of mine. For I have the most to possibility to learn from difference and challenge. Yet, when open discussion is not allowed by those who demand that their point of view be heard and demand that it is correct.

So, by bringing up this discussion, I was hoping multiple things would occur, one this issue could be compeltely put to bed, and never brought up by anyone. I was also hoping to be able to resolve these open issues between us, because it seemed that we had no chance to go forward, and with other people constantly beinging up this issue and the mods and the YiLi's I find it hard to move forward.

You see even agreeing to disagree is fine by just so long as I am completely left out the issue. Yet when the Mods were refeneced I felt I had to reply and ask.

So, once again I ask you and all involved to please provide me with the proof that I have falsified information and or lied.

If it cannot, then I kindly ask that everyone please stop using generic terms, in describing people. Use the Tag or real name of the person, and make it specific. Avoid the confusion, avoid the issue of misunderstanding.

I apologize for the long post. I do hope this clears some things up.
:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

I haven't posted in a very, very, very long time. I'm going to toss my 2 cents in, in addition to Chufeng's, to clarify things from my perspective... I took notes as I skimmed this craptacular thread, so my comments are in the order I was offended...

1 - I wasn't booted, banned, nor am I currently closely watched on other fora. If Bob can prove this, I invite him to do so.

2 - I wasn't "done in" as someone implied.

3 - I left on principle, something some folks who, thankfully, are none too active on the internet anymore, seemed then (and I suspect still are) in short supply of. I didn't break the rules, though I may well have bent a few.

4 - Why am I (or any of the others) "wrong" for having left? I left the board because I felt that it no longer met the standards I felt it had upheld when I first joined. Rather that stay and give myself an ulcer everytime I saw another post from a Chiduce or an ARK, I left. That eliminated the possibility of my finally losing it a la Falling Down and making an *** of myself. Best decision for both parties concerned.

5 - Rich Parsons - WTF are you talking about in regards to questions that "the Yilis" have yet to answer? Please, ask your questions here and I'll answer anything you like. I seem to recall making a similar offer to you elsewhere and elsewhen... But bear in mind, my answers may not be the ones you are looking for...

And Rich, we weren't "4 year olds taking our toys home and leaving." We made the mature decision to leave rather than continue to implicitly support policies we did not agree with. The decisions, actions, and policies in effect at that time were not to our liking. Would you rather we have stayed? What purpose would that have served? I don't see how that was to anyone's best interests - mine, Chufeng's, nor MT's.

6 - Bob - You alleged upthread that we were "milking the public." Care to elaborate how we are doing that? I'd love to hear your theories, and I'd love to see some proof...

7 - Rich Parsons - Down here on Planet Earth, you'll find that I'm not afraid of much, least of all you. I'm not afraid of you, nor any other entity on MT. If you would care to outline how it is you've come by this fallacy, I'd love to hear the theory. If your comment was a thinly veiled challenge, feel free to visit me up here in WA anytime to determine just how scared I am...

And I don't recall insulting you. I do recall not agreeing that I had done anything wrong and refusing to apologize just to make you happy. I apologize when I've done something wrong, and I have yet to be convinced that my actions in the past deserve an apology. If you don't like that, find a way to deal with it and let it go.

Sorry for the disruption folks. But in light of this thread and the fact that some of the "esteemed" staff here have chosen to drag my name through the dirt, I guess I'm baaaaack...

Enjoy.

And my name is Matt Stone... Not Mike. He's a fake ninja wannabe karate guy who made crap movies in the 80's. He's well known and internationally famous, too, but still a fake ninja nonetheless...

Reply to 4) Questions on the other thread. Thank You for starting it and being open enough to try. Yet as posted there, I think we will not come to a conclusion.

As to staying, if you had stayed or decide to post regularly, then this is fine. Follow the rules as posted, and I will enjoy the information. If an opinion of "I am always right and it must be my way or else everyone is wrong" which is how I read your posts, then no I will not enjoy reading. Yet if they are within the rules maybe others will.

No Threat meant. If I had that type of issue, I would not discuss anything at all with you. I might ask for a phone number to see if the voice could clear it up though. As to afraid, I asked, before and it was ignored until it became difficult to go back and find exactly. And I thought ti might be better to move on. Yet I do remember a post that was upsetting because you or one of your friends asked why a certain person woudl not answer your questions. Like I said you asked what they were, I replied on the other thread.


Reply to 7) As to the insult, here you felt you had to come back and defend your good name. Could that not be interpreted as an insult by me to you. Yet, if you did not have thin skin you might have let it go? Or it could be an issue of your perceived truth versus mine. You refer to planet earth. I enjoy it here. Your belief that any action is fine so long as in the ends you get what you want, does not fly in my opinion. I think we agree that this will not be resolved.

And as to bringing it, I just remember being refered to as Mods and Admins. Therefore teh fraud busters were RR and YiLi's in general. If those who were involved use the specific names and not teh general then maybe the issue of principals on my part may not kick in and make feel like I should reply. As I would know then that the issue was not directly nor indirectly at me.

:asian:

 

[Matt Stone]

Ok no one is afraid of me.

Thanks for verifying that.

Matt started a thread. One of the questions was about the dead horse story. I still do not see how it relates.

I still don't know what you're talking about, other than the fact that ARK is no longer a member anywhere, and resolution regarding the issues between he, Chufeng and I was accomplished long ago...

As to stop bashing YiLi, if this is your wish, then please do not bash me nor the Mods nor the Admins.

Disagreeing with the actions of the moderators of a forum is far different than "bashing" the art(s) they practice. The issue at the time of the long dead flame war was one dealing with the staff, and so the staff was addressed. Your issue is now one with individuals, not the arts they practice. Your argument makes as much sense as me insulting Modern Arnis because I don't like the comments you've made... Do you not see the flaw in your logic?

You state that truth out weighs the nice factor. I respect that you have a different view from that of the posted board.

How can truth not outweigh politeness? If niceness was the standard by which behavior must be measured, then there would have been all kinds of atrocities committed throuhout history... It isn't quite the same, but I understand that Jeff Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy were both quite pleasant gentlemen... Doesn't the truth of their crime outweigh how nice they were? Again, that's a long stretch in comparison, but I think (hope?) you get the point.

Why were threads locked on this other board, that has less rules? Why was I told not to reply because I was hi-jacking threads over there? Why Was I told that I did not belong and was just plain wrong.

1) I locked it first, Chufeng never locked it. I locked it to keep it between ARK, Chufeng and me. It was addressed to us, not to you, but it was addressed in that semi-restricted forum so that it could be discussed openly for any and all to view. That didn't mean you had to participate.

2) Because you were hijacking the discussion between the three of us in order to address your ruffled feathers over wrongs long since over. Again, it was an A - B conversation, and you were neither A nor B.

3) Because you didn't belong in the conversation! It was an attempt between the three of us to address and finally reconcile the situation to the betterment of all three of us involved. You made number four, and you'll note that you were never part of the original issue between the three of us...

Yet, it were these tactics that the MOds adn Admins were asking you and your friends to stop using. Leave it the thread in question and not run from thread to thread, nor stalk someone.

We were asked to be nice. We were asked to be polite. We were asked not to call names. We were asked not to pursue. We complied. Note, please, that we were never suspended nor banned. That means we complied with what was asked of us. Or did that escape you?

I agree that maybe you personally did not do this. Yet, everyone seems bent on using the terms Mods and Admins without naming names. Therefore, I refer to YiLi and friends, and I am sorry if your skin is too thin, if you beleive you have not done such.

You admit that we weren't guilty of that, but because you took offense to our generalization regarding the support that the moderators and admin staff of MT had for their policies and for Bob's sanctions against RSK, you now pursue a vendetta against us? A vendetta that has no foundation in our own actions? That really doesn't make any sense at all... Please, someone, point out to me how that works...

"Bill attacked Suzie. Ray and Johnny, Bill's friends, were then attacked by Suzie's friend Tom. They must be worthy of attack, as they are Bill's friends."

Logic test was just failed.

I told you in the thread on CanAm that the people I addressed were Kaith and Arnisador. They are mods/admin, are they not? Therefore, rather than name them individually each and every time, "mods/admin" sufficed. I told you this last December, but it seems to continue to fail to register...

In essence I believe you and others behaved poorly. You do not.

Please, if we behaved poorly, how, specifically, did we do this? We were not suspended nor banned, so we must have kept our actions within the boundaries of the policies and rules, did we not?

Yet, friends of friends keep beinging this issue up. If everyone just let the issue drop, told all their friends to let it drop, had no secret agenda, then maybe we can all get over this issue that will in my opinion never be resolved completely.

I don't know any other way to say this...

YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT US BACK INTO THIS. KENNETHKU MADE REFERENCE TO OUR DEPARTURE, BUT YOU ARE THE ONE THAT STARTED MAKING INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS ABOUT US, PROMPTING OUR RETURN.

Is that clear enough for you? Please, look around and show me where either Chufeng or I have referred to this issue since LAST DECEMBER, when you interfered in ARK and our conversation... You won't, because you CAN'T. Because right now you are the torch bearing crusader against an issue long dead.

Why? You and friends believe that the Ends justify the means no matter how many people get hurt. I believe otherwise. In my opinion the tactics used were that of bullying and multiple opponents like wolves to get the vitum running in circles until an opening could be found. This might work some places. I just do not think it is best here. Once again different point of views that I do nto think will ever be resolved.

A couple of things...

First, in MA, you work the opponent until an opening presents itself. Once you see the opening, you should be halfway through it. When you get the opponent on the run, you pursue. Give him no chance to recover, because if you do you'll have to start all over again.

The ends do not always justify the means. You are the one saying we think that, but we certainly do not. However, at some point you have to make a stand, and we appear to be more prepared than others to do that, or so it seems.

Lastly, if someone comes into an open, public forum claiming the ability to fly, then it is going to be up to them to defend it. If they can't, they absolutely must be prepared for the backlash. If it is a well-trafficked public forum, then they must be prepared for multiple questions from multiple questioners. That is precisely what happened. How can there be any argument with that?

Yet, when everyone cries that we chased you out, and you your self point out that you left under your own.

We left of our own accord. We were forced to make that decision because of the actions, decisions, and policies of this forum. I could not, in good conscience, remain following that flame war. I disagreed completely with the decision to suspend RSK, and I disagreed completely with Kaith's follow up poll reagarding banning RSK. Remaining here would be implicitly supporting those decisions because I would have been choosing to play by the same rules that allowed those decisions to be made.

So in effect, we were chased out. Our conscience could not allow us any other option.

I thank you for this post. You see this points out that even though everyone thinks it is an Us versus Them, when there were individuals involved. I really wish people would just name the individuals involved, and not be generic and imply. Thereby my thin skin take affront to this action, and then replies in kind.

I thank you for your replies, as it shows everyone, publicly, that you are still the one carrying the grudge. My replies show exactly where I stand, and where I stood. Please, if anyone has questions, ask away...

I know that we will most likely never see eye to eye. No matter how much we agree on the fraud issue. You and Your friends approach is different then mine. It reminds me of the cops who break into your house, destroy it and accidentally shot a family member because they were after a felon. Yet, they might have been on the wrong street or the inverted address. I know this is a setch for some, yet I see them as the same. If you can run rough shod, do you beleive the goverenment has the right to enter your house at will to find out the truth? Long philisophical discussion, like I said that we may never agree upon.

You may not be far off in your example, but I'd offer that the family member may have been shot for noncompliance with police directives, and that the house would be repaired by the police as they didn't destroy it deliberately.

As far as the Government entering your house to find the truth, certainly. If the truth will save someone's life, property, or otherwise act in the public good, then yes. If a fraudulent MAist is teaching crap techniques, labeling them deadly and lethal, but in fact they would do nothing to defend the student in question, then it should be a moral imperitive that the fraud be exposed publicly in order to save his students additional expense and possible danger.

I do recognize that you and your friends have passion for the martial arts.

I also recognize that you have knowledge I do not have access too.

Not sure how to take that, but I'll just stick with "thank you."

Yet, I was told on this board and off of it to stay out of you and your friends way, and being dismissed like only your opinion counts and that of others does not count. This is another area in which we differ. I believe your opinion and words do matter, even more because they differ from that of mine. For I have the most to possibility to learn from difference and challenge. Yet, when open discussion is not allowed by those who demand that their point of view be heard and demand that it is correct.

I don't remember that, but I'll just leave it with "if you say so." If there is a conflict between a few people, I stay out of it unless I'm involved. That's just how I was raised. Maybe you were raised differently. Whatever.

So, by bringing up this discussion, I was hoping multiple things would occur, one this issue could be compeltely put to bed, and never brought up by anyone. I was also hoping to be able to resolve these open issues between us, because it seemed that we had no chance to go forward, and with other people constantly beinging up this issue and the mods and the YiLi's I find it hard to move forward.

How is it being "constantly" brought up? You (how many times have I said this, now?) are the one that dragged "the Yilis" back into it. If you'd drop it, it'd be dropped.

You see even agreeing to disagree is fine by just so long as I am completely left out the issue. Yet when the Mods were refeneced I felt I had to reply and ask.

So, once again I ask you and all involved to please provide me with the proof that I have falsified information and or lied.

If it cannot, then I kindly ask that everyone please stop using generic terms, in describing people. Use the Tag or real name of the person, and make it specific. Avoid the confusion, avoid the issue of misunderstanding.

I apologize for the long post. I do hope this clears some things up.
:asian:

And it comes down to the truth - this is all about you and your ruffled feathers by being referenced in a generalized comment about "the mods."

Whatever. I think that speaks volumes by itself.

 

[chufeng]

:asian:

Yet, when everyone cries that we chased you out

I was not chased out...
I was not forced to make a decision...

I chose to leave for the reasons I stated, period.

Rich,
I am not "thin-skinned,' I simply wanted to set the record straight here, on your forum. You have a tendancy to reshape the facts to fit your own, angry, world view.

The horse story must keep you up at night...so in the interest of helping you get some sleep, the story did nothing to advance the thread...but then, the thread didn't need to advance...it was a dead issue...I was hoping to close out that thread with the dead horse story...everyone else seemed to get the point...

I do not owe you an apology...you still haven't shown me, or anybody else a post where I insulted you...and I don't think you can because it didn't happen.

I can agree to disagree...so let's drop this, right here, right now.

chufeng

 

[Rich Parsons]

:asian:
I was not chased out...
I was not forced to make a decision...

I chose to leave for the reasons I stated, period.

Rich,
I am not "thin-skinned,' I simply wanted to set the record straight here, on your forum. You have a tendancy to reshape the facts to fit your own, angry, world view.

The horse story must keep you up at night...so in the interest of helping you get some sleep, the story did nothing to advance the thread...but then, the thread didn't need to advance...it was a dead issue...I was hoping to close out that thread with the dead horse story...everyone else seemed to get the point...

I do not owe you an apology...you still haven't shown me, or anybody else a post where I insulted you...and I don't think you can because it didn't happen.

I can agree to disagree...so let's drop this, right here, right now.

chufeng

Chufeng,

First Thank You for replying again.



You say, there was no insult. Fine. I accept the agree to disagree. Yet this means we might not always post what the other likes unfortunately.

You made a decision, and your point of view differes from that of Mr. Stone, this is fine also. As you both are individuals. I respect that you made a decision.

I think my reply to Matt on the other thread will also help here.
:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Thanks for verifying that.



I still don't know what you're talking about, other than the fact that ARK is no longer a member anywhere, and resolution regarding the issues between he, Chufeng and I was accomplished long ago...



Disagreeing with the actions of the moderators of a forum is far different than "bashing" the art(s) they practice. The issue at the time of the long dead flame war was one dealing with the staff, and so the staff was addressed. Your issue is now one with individuals, not the arts they practice. Your argument makes as much sense as me insulting Modern Arnis because I don't like the comments you've made... Do you not see the flaw in your logic?



How can truth not outweigh politeness? If niceness was the standard by which behavior must be measured, then there would have been all kinds of atrocities committed throuhout history... It isn't quite the same, but I understand that Jeff Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy were both quite pleasant gentlemen... Doesn't the truth of their crime outweigh how nice they were? Again, that's a long stretch in comparison, but I think (hope?) you get the point.



1) I locked it first, Chufeng never locked it. I locked it to keep it between ARK, Chufeng and me. It was addressed to us, not to you, but it was addressed in that semi-restricted forum so that it could be discussed openly for any and all to view. That didn't mean you had to participate.

2) Because you were hijacking the discussion between the three of us in order to address your ruffled feathers over wrongs long since over. Again, it was an A - B conversation, and you were neither A nor B.

3) Because you didn't belong in the conversation! It was an attempt between the three of us to address and finally reconcile the situation to the betterment of all three of us involved. You made number four, and you'll note that you were never part of the original issue between the three of us...



We were asked to be nice. We were asked to be polite. We were asked not to call names. We were asked not to pursue. We complied. Note, please, that we were never suspended nor banned. That means we complied with what was asked of us. Or did that escape you?



You admit that we weren't guilty of that, but because you took offense to our generalization regarding the support that the moderators and admin staff of MT had for their policies and for Bob's sanctions against RSK, you now pursue a vendetta against us? A vendetta that has no foundation in our own actions? That really doesn't make any sense at all... Please, someone, point out to me how that works...

"Bill attacked Suzie. Ray and Johnny, Bill's friends, were then attacked by Suzie's friend Tom. They must be worthy of attack, as they are Bill's friends."

Logic test was just failed.

I told you in the thread on CanAm that the people I addressed were Kaith and Arnisador. They are mods/admin, are they not? Therefore, rather than name them individually each and every time, "mods/admin" sufficed. I told you this last December, but it seems to continue to fail to register...



Please, if we behaved poorly, how, specifically, did we do this? We were not suspended nor banned, so we must have kept our actions within the boundaries of the policies and rules, did we not?



I don't know any other way to say this...

YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT US BACK INTO THIS. KENNETHKU MADE REFERENCE TO OUR DEPARTURE, BUT YOU ARE THE ONE THAT STARTED MAKING INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS ABOUT US, PROMPTING OUR RETURN.

Is that clear enough for you? Please, look around and show me where either Chufeng or I have referred to this issue since LAST DECEMBER, when you interfered in ARK and our conversation... You won't, because you CAN'T. Because right now you are the torch bearing crusader against an issue long dead.



A couple of things...

First, in MA, you work the opponent until an opening presents itself. Once you see the opening, you should be halfway through it. When you get the opponent on the run, you pursue. Give him no chance to recover, because if you do you'll have to start all over again.

The ends do not always justify the means. You are the one saying we think that, but we certainly do not. However, at some point you have to make a stand, and we appear to be more prepared than others to do that, or so it seems.

Lastly, if someone comes into an open, public forum claiming the ability to fly, then it is going to be up to them to defend it. If they can't, they absolutely must be prepared for the backlash. If it is a well-trafficked public forum, then they must be prepared for multiple questions from multiple questioners. That is precisely what happened. How can there be any argument with that?



We left of our own accord. We were forced to make that decision because of the actions, decisions, and policies of this forum. I could not, in good conscience, remain following that flame war. I disagreed completely with the decision to suspend RSK, and I disagreed completely with Kaith's follow up poll reagarding banning RSK. Remaining here would be implicitly supporting those decisions because I would have been choosing to play by the same rules that allowed those decisions to be made.

So in effect, we were chased out. Our conscience could not allow us any other option.



I thank you for your replies, as it shows everyone, publicly, that you are still the one carrying the grudge. My replies show exactly where I stand, and where I stood. Please, if anyone has questions, ask away...



You may not be far off in your example, but I'd offer that the family member may have been shot for noncompliance with police directives, and that the house would be repaired by the police as they didn't destroy it deliberately.

As far as the Government entering your house to find the truth, certainly. If the truth will save someone's life, property, or otherwise act in the public good, then yes. If a fraudulent MAist is teaching crap techniques, labeling them deadly and lethal, but in fact they would do nothing to defend the student in question, then it should be a moral imperitive that the fraud be exposed publicly in order to save his students additional expense and possible danger.



Not sure how to take that, but I'll just stick with "thank you."



I don't remember that, but I'll just leave it with "if you say so." If there is a conflict between a few people, I stay out of it unless I'm involved. That's just how I was raised. Maybe you were raised differently. Whatever.



How is it being "constantly" brought up? You (how many times have I said this, now?) are the one that dragged "the Yilis" back into it. If you'd drop it, it'd be dropped.



And it comes down to the truth - this is all about you and your ruffled feathers by being referenced in a generalized comment about "the mods."

Whatever. I think that speaks volumes by itself.

Matt,

Thank You for posting. I think we are much closer than I expected.

Please see the other thread.

 

[Matt Stone]

Please see the other thread.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Can we agree that the RP/MS issues are being discused in the other thread, and either lock this (since Mr. Ku doesn't seem inclined to continue) or let it die?

 

[Matt Stone]

Kill it... Kill it dead...

Then let's beat it some more!!! :flame: :boing2: :lol:

Just kidding! Except for the kill it part...

 

[KennethKu]

Sigh! Gone for a few days and look what the cat dragged in? lol

Good to see Chufeng and Yiliquan1.

They have done such a fine job in elaborating, that I have little to add, besides " told ya!" lol

I admire their attention to details. If I cared enough, I would put in the effort (at least try to, lol ), but I don't. Heck, I don't even care about the pointless insult hurled by the rest of the minions. lol

As to the info I posted about certain mods have dubious MA claims and have been acting out of their self interest in hindering fraud expose, you sirs, know who you are and EXACTLY what I am talking about. Rest assure that the day of reckoning shall come.

Despite all the desperate attempt in white washing the issue as a matter of rules and policies, the underlying factor is certain mods' blatant siding with the frauds, in clear violation of neutrality and fair policing. If you need evidence of such biasness, just observe how certain individuals on this thread are allowed to engage in name callings and other personal attack against someone on the opposite side of the mod team.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Since Mr. Ku will not post links to the areas where were are being taken to task, matter closed.

If its that important, it'll turn up.


Thread closed.