You insisted that it was always my skin being too thin. Yet when I bring up any issue you and your friends all come running.
Because you tend to make statements that offend more than one person. If I started spouting off about Modern Arnis in general, I'd be an idiot not to expect responses from anyone and everyone involved in Modern Arnis training. Is this a surprise to you?
I agreed before that it was best to disagree on this.
Perhaps we did. But you are the one that started bringing up past events from other boards here on MT. That's why I'm here addressing it, on your turf, on your terms.
Yet I thought maybe you could talk to your friends and explain to them that I do nto like being called a fraud nor a liar, nor giving false information. All the case I brought up, you threw back as me being too thin skinned.
I don't remember you being called a fraud nor liar. I remember you being called to task regarding your support of issues long dead, as well as your desire for apologies for wrongs that were never committed.
Yet, it was your tactics and those of your friends to continue to beat a subject until someone gave in and stopped or just agreed to disagree.
That is the nature of argument and debate, isn't it? Two sides with differing opinions either discuss the issue until one side capitulates, or until they realize that they are at an impasse. How is this "my tactics?" As for beating a dead subject, who was it again that brought Yili into this? Was it a Yili person? No. Kenneth happens to agree with our views. He is not one of our students. Though it may come as a surprise to you, not everyone was in agreement with the decisions made so long ago. We may not have been the majority, but we weren't alone. Let me remind you that you were the one that challenged Yili people here on MT. I didn't come over here challenging you. The issue was dead as far as I was concerned, right up until you started spouting off...
Yet you cannot ever agree that you might have made a mistake ever, nor those you and your friends defend.
Maybe what it is is that your reading comprehension isn't up to snuff. If you read the posts I made in the glass houses thread, and if you review the thread you jumped into on CanAm, you'll see that I did, in fact, apologize to you for your misunderstanding of what I said at one point, and that I acknowledged my locking of the thread was premature. How is that not admitting I've made mistakes? Review some of my posts here on MT from long ago, and you'll see I've made public apologies for being wrong here as well... Go ahead, reread the stuff, and then tell me again how resistant I am to making amends
when I am proven to be wrong. That's kind of the key, because if I'm
not wrong, I don't apologize just to make nice...
Additionally, I'm not an apologist. My friends are grown men and women that are more than capable of defending themselves and their actions. I wouldn't then, nor will I now, apologize for the actions of Chufeng, RyuShiKan, or any of the others involved. They can speak for themselves. Because I may not agree with the specific methods involved doesn't mean I don't support the end goal. I wouldn't have done things the way others did/have done them, but then I'm not them - I'm me, and I do things my way. If you can't accept that, tough beans for you...
I don't believe that you, specifically, were ever targetted as "supporting frauds." However, at the time of the flame war in question, the policies of MT were not advanced enough to have provisions to deal with that kind of situation. It seems to me that there are mechanisms in place for managing such things now. I still disagree with certain particulars (I still say you can't call someone out without pissing them off, which it seems is against the rules; I still say that sometimes you have to stand up and proclaim someone's BS loudly enough for all to hear, and that's against the rules; I still say that sometimes you have to rehash old subjects and open old wounds to ensure that people don't forget old transgressions, and that is certainly against the rules), but I'm not here to debate that. As a moderator, you supported (and I'm guessing you still support) the policies that allowed RSK to get himself suspended. So that got you lumped in with the rest. As a soldier I've learned that when someone gripes about the military, they probably don't mean me specifically, but what I and my comrades represent. Mods and staff of web fora are in a similar position - you are the representative of the board you work on, and therefore are viewed as part and parcel of the successes and problems. Deal with it or step down. Simple answer, really.
I also do not support bullies, and Nazi's or Nazi types who believe that collateral damage of any type or any amount justifies the end result. I ahppen to disagree with this. Yes, I mention Nazi's as your friend Kenneth Ku insulted me and made reference to me spitting on veterans. This I find despicable.
Do you know anything about history? If you do spit on veterans, then you aren't a National Socialist, but rather a fiend of a different stripe. I don't think you spit on veterans, and I'm not sure why that comment was made toward you. But
I didn't make it, nor was it made on my behalf. Take it up with Kenneth.
Therefore since you and your friends seem to like to lump all of the Mods and Admins into your enemy group all as one, I lump you all into one group and reply in kind. If you find this upsetting then maybe your skin should be a little more think. :idunno:
No, it doesn't upset me. You don't have that kind of power. I find it amusing that you see a corrolation between your support of a forum's policies and the actions of individuals who act independently as the same thing.
Please explain to me what a fiary tale has to do with fraud busting and also beated a dead horse. Their was a post by Chefung that drove to my asking this question. What does it support to the discussion? Never an answer.
What are you talking about? If you have a question for Chufeng, ask Chufeng. I don't presume to speak on his behalf, nor would he on mine, unless there was a blatantly obvious mutual opinion. This sounds more like something you need to address with him, however...
Once again as you and your friends do not like or speak well of the mods and admins here and lump all in one, I have done also here. I fyou wish not to answer, I would understand as Chefung may wish to answer that, and I respect that. Yet, I still have the question.
And what is the question? How his post regarding dead horses advanced the thread? Ask him.
Why is it ok for Yiliquan to be a new art and no other art is legitmate? I know nothing of this art, and I am not making judgement calls here about the techniques nor the capabilities of the teachers and practitioners, on the philosphy of who is this different?
I don't recall anyone, ever, saying that Yiliquan was the only art that was legitimate. I specifically recall myself, my seniors, and my teacher saying that "new" arts are only validated by survival over time, and that repackaging of other arts under a new name doesn't constitute a "new" art. The issue of ARK's art wasn't in question so much so as the inordinate amount of high rankings that he laid claim to. That was resolved, and it seems you are the only one still bringing it up...
Balls in your court. I'll be chiming in on the other thread to address issue brought up there as well (though I'll only address those issues and try not to advance them - I'll save that for here).
