Taekkyon

[exile]

I also think that a lot of the anger and insecurity comes from the same reason why TKD is always, ALWAYS, identified as "The Korean martial art" - nationalism, ethnocentrism, and dare I say it - racism. What other style goes so far out of its way to identify its nationality or ethnicity? Or what other style makes such a concentrated effort to deny its actual roots because they happen to be connected to another group of people? It seems that the actual art of Taekwondo gets lost in all of this and the focus shifts to nationalism and ethnocentrism. What is wrong with just admitting the art's actual roots and practicing it for the love the art? Why get so heavily invested in another nation's struggle that you are not a part of, and why aid in nationalist and ethnocentrist agendas? I for one am secure in my TKD and don't need to deny the facts or try to change what I practice just because it was influenced by the "wrong" nation and/or ethnicity.

Beautifully put, SG, especially the part I've bolded. This is the part I find so perplexing. The thing Terry has alluded to several times in a number of threads is the we need to make TKD our own. Whatever role it has in Korea shouldn't, and can't, be the same role it has for us... we're not part of Korean culture or history, and what is meaningful and urgent to the people there is a kind of distant footnote, if that, in our own immediate experience. And vice versa.

I'm not saying that we don't connect with people in Korea at some fundamental level of humanity, where they were subject to horrible abuses by a military regime that carried out some of the most horrible war crimes in history. But that isn't the same thing, not by a long shot, as taking over the role of apologists for the ROK sporteaucrats and pocket-liners that are playing this kind of nationalist anthem for all it's worth (to them, which is a $$lot$$, apparently)...

 

[tkd1964]

I. You Can Talk to a Grandmaster in DFW


A Black Belt is a guy who knows how to punch and kick people in certain prescribed ways. That's it. Period. That is the entire meaning of the scrap of cloth and expensive piece of fake parchment. And all it really does is say that a bunch of other guys with fancier pieces of fake parchment think that he can.

It doesn't make him a priest, a doctor, a lawyer, an artist or a historian. It doesn't make him less fallible than you or me. In fact, it makes him more fallible and less trustworthy the higher he climbs the pole. The more of his life he invests in the organization and the more titles he accepts the more of his self image gets tied up with the style and its rituals, legends and framing stories.

.

Then why is it when exile constantly brings up GM Kim, it's taken as gods word. according to you, I should be less trusting of him.

And in my post, all I was stating was the fact that the ancient history of Korea can not be completely compiled since the country is split in two. My brother has been to NK and you will not be able to explore it's history other than the Juche propaganda. Is there more history on the ancient Korean arts that people have yet to find. No one will know until the North is an open country.

 

[exile]

Then why is it when exile constantly brings up GM Kim, it's taken as gods word. according to you, I should be less trusting of him.

Not at all, tkd. What tellner was saying is that people who are advanced within a particular structure tend to reinforce the 'charter legends' of that structure. Reread what he's saying and you'll see that that's the core of his point. And the thing about Gm. Kim is that he gave up the role of organization man in order to carry out and disseminate his own researches on the history of TKD, against the wishes of the Korean TKD directorate. Read what Rob Mclain has said in his own post in this thread—Gm. Kim is the instructor he's talking about. That's exactly the reason that Gm. Kim's view has much greater credibilty than that of the KKW insiders—he doesn't have a stake in their creation myth, because he's not invested in the Korean TKD sporteaucracy. It's no different than the the point of the rhetorical question, who is more trustworthy on the hazards of secondhand smoke—a researcher whose lab funds and experimental resources were supplied by the Tobacco Institute, or a researcher operating on an NIH oncology grant? A study on the environmental impact of the internal combustion engine paid for by General Motors, or one carried out by an NSF grant recipient with the usual no-strings-attached protocols that the NSF operates by? This is the same kind of situation.

And that, btw, is a far different view of things than saying I take Gm. Kim's comments as 'god's word'. That kind of distortion doesn't help your own cause one bit. I asked in my earlier post that people not take this to be about me personally; I'm going to ask you again to bear in mind that this is not about me.

 

[SageGhost83]

I think that it would be interesting to find out more about the ancient history of Korea. However, that ancient history would not include TKD - a style that was born in the 50's for crying out loud. I am sorry, no matter how much people push and push and try to force us to believe that TKD is from ancient Korea in the face of overwhelming evidence provided to the contrary of such a line of reasoning, the sillier and more immature they make themselves look. I would be willing to have a more open mind about it if the pro-myth crowd at least could provide more substantial evidence than "the korean government says so" or "Sanbunim said so" or even "I have trained for such a long time and I think so". Don't give me the KKW line either, how are they going to come out with such a line when the Taekkyon organization itself denies the link? It is amazing what some orgs would do just to spread propaganda. Actually, it is quite sad. 2 + 2 does not equal 5 no matter how badly one may wish it to.

 

[YoungMan]

Taekwondo is not 2000 years old, and most people realize that. I am fully aware that it is only about 50-60 years old. However, some of us do believe that it is descended from native Korean arts that go back centuries, with influences from Japanese and Chinese arts.
Think of it like this: I am 39 years old. My family, however, may go back over 100 years on one side, and 70-80 years on another. I am the current incarnation of where my family came from, descended from my great grandfather, but not him.
Taekwondo is not Taekkyon, but I've seen too many similarities between the two not to think they are related.

 

[tkd1964]

I think that it would be interesting to find out more about the ancient history of Korea. However, that ancient history would not include TKD - a style that was born in the 50's for crying out loud. I am sorry, no matter how much people push and push and try to force us to believe that TKD is from ancient Korea in the face of overwhelming evidence provided to the contrary of such a line of reasoning, the sillier and more immature they make themselves look. I would be willing to have a more open mind about it if the pro-myth crowd at least could provide more substantial evidence than "the korean government says so" or "Sanbunim said so" or even "I have trained for such a long time and I think so". Don't give me the KKW line either, how are they going to come out with such a line when the Taekkyon organization itself denies the link? It is amazing what some orgs would do just to spread propaganda. Actually, it is quite sad. 2 + 2 does not equal 5 no matter how badly one may wish it to.

I thought we were talking about Taek Kyon:wink2:.

 

[terryl965]

I thought we were talking about Taek Kyon:wink2:.

Me too

 

[SageGhost83]

Taekwondo is not 2000 years old, and most people realize that. I am fully aware that it is only about 50-60 years old. However, some of us do believe that it is descended from native Korean arts that go back centuries, with influences from Japanese and Chinese arts.
Think of it like this: I am 39 years old. My family, however, may go back over 100 years on one side, and 70-80 years on another. I am the current incarnation of where my family came from, descended from my great grandfather, but not him.
Taekwondo is not Taekkyon, but I've seen too many similarities between the two not to think they are related.

Well, superficially yes - they are both kicking arts and there are only so many different ways that you can execute a kick. Using this logic, we can also make the same argument for TKD being related to Savate, Capoeira(sp?), certain Chinese martial arts, or heck, any martial art that contains kicking techniques in it. I understand your line of reasoning, but it is just too much of a broad generalization to link the two solely on those similarities alone when it has been exhaustively demonstrated over and over again that there is no link between the two and the Taekkyon side denies the connection too. Taekwondo uses amazing acrobatic kicks while traditional Taekkyon used mostly low, stomping kicks. If they were related, in the way that you mention, then wouldn't Taekwondo at least feature far more low, stomping kicks? Modern Taekkyon revival doesn't count because it was heavily inspired by Taekwondo and not vice versa, so it goes without saying that there are going to be higher kicks in it. Pardon me for getting off topic, tkd1964. It is just one of those issues that has a way of rearing its ugly little head from time to time. Consider it dropped, at least on my end:asian:.

 

[SageGhost83]

I've seen too many similarities between the two not to think they are related.

And therein lies the key - what you think versus actual evidence. Look, to each his own opinion, and I definitely respect yours even if I don't always agree with it. However, that is the thing - it is an issue of fact, not opinion. I think lots of things based on my experiences, but when actual evidence comes up that debunks my opinions, then I must acknowledge said evidence or I would be living dangerously in denial. Nothing against you, and I do value your input even if I come off as sounding otherwise, but it is the nature of the subject that we are dealing with. History requires facts and evidence, not mere opinion.

 

[YoungMan]

Actually, I was taught low kicks many years ago that are very similar to the low kicks Taekkyon does (sweeping kicks to the calves and ankles as opposed to power kicks such as karate does).
I also tend to believe that Taekkyon would be much less open to change (i.e. trading with Taekwondo and learning it's kicks). The kicks I see Taekkyon students doing match the published accounts I've read (Robert Young, Dakin Burdick etc.), which leads me to believe Taekkyon did/does more than simply low kicks. Anyway, how could it pick up those kicks from TKD if TKD didn't do them?
I've also read several accounts of Won Kuk Lee being a Taekkyon student as a teenager. The official accounts say that he left for Japan at age 19 to attend school. They never say what he did BEFORE he left for Japan. I've also read at least one account in TaekwondoTimes (I forget who it was) that stated GGM Lee did teach some Taekkyon as part of his curriculum. Lee stated he learned from a "Mr. Kim". This would have been around 1920 in Seoul.

 

[exile]

Actually, I was taught low kicks many years ago that are very similar to the low kicks Taekkyon does (sweeping kicks to the calves and ankles as opposed to power kicks such as karate does).
I also tend to believe that Taekkyon would be much less open to change (i.e. trading with Taekwondo and learning it's kicks).

Why? As Rob McLain pointed out, current Taekkyon was reconstructed; the one person we know of who had any students at the critical time, Song Duk-ki, had only a few, we know who those are, none of them were first generation Kwan era instructors, and most of the people doing Taekkyon are doing a version that came into being between the '80s and the present day. How could it have failed to change?

The kicks I see Taekkyon students doing match the published accounts I've read (Robert Young, Dakin Burdick etc.),

Yes, such similarities as described in Young, for example?

Tae kyon fighters move with a rhythm which beginning students sometimes learn while traditional Korean drums and bamboo flutes keep time.... similar movements have been found in the tal chuan, the centuries-old Korean mask dance (Lee Y. B., 1988, interview).... Tae kyon's kicks have proved so effective that the style does not even include among its hand strikes a traditional jab or reverse punch... however, the kicks themselves bear little resemblance to the typical spinning and jumping maneuvers glorified in tournaments and film. Instead, taekyon leg techniques are simple and direct, focusing upon linear moves but including limited usage of circular and spinning kicks. Lee Yong-bok says, 'Taekyon has traditionally emphasized stepping and stomping techniques directed at the opponent's legs and feet. (1992, interview).​

(p. 66) Are we talking about the same Robert Young here??

And so far as Burdick is concerned, let's take a look at just what he does say:

The only uniquely Korean martial arts before the twentieth century were ssirum and t'aeggyon, and neither of these had a great impact on the early development of t'aekwondo. Ssirum was a form of wrestling that became popular as a sport by the thirteenth century. It is still practiced in Korea, but had no obvious effect on the development of t'aekwondo. T'aeggyon appeared in the early 1800s, about the same time that the Chinese martial arts became less popular, and in its modern form is an art emphasizing circular kicking, leg sweeps, and leg trapping followed by a throw. There does seem to be some link between modern t'aeggyon and t'aekwondo, since both arts emphasize circular kicking (roundhouse kick, spinning kicks [explicitly denied as part of traditional taekkyon, as per the statement from LYB cited earlier—exile]) rather than linear ones (side kick, front kick), but any influence that t'aeggyon may have had upon t'aekwondo's development was not evident in the techniques of the latter until the 1960s. ​

(my emphases). And of course, the whole point is that at that time, the 1960s, there was so little taekyon being practiced that Song Duk-ki couldn't find anyone to help him with his famous taekkyon demo (as he himself writes in his own book on taekkyon, published in 1983)! Burdick is noting what we all agree on: reconstructed taekkyon has some kicks that are very similar to some TKD kicks. But that's not what you're claiming, YM. You're asserting, against the testimony of the actual Taekkyon people themselves, that the kicks came to TKD via taekkyon, in the Kwan era and shortly afterwards. And that's where you have no evidence to present.

which leads me to believe Taekkyon did/does more than simply low kicks. Anyway, how could it pick up those kicks from TKD if TKD didn't do them?

Um... I think you've lost track of what it is that Taekkyon has picked up from TKD, YM. No one is saying that Taekkyon picked up its low sweeps, leg-checking blocking kicks and stomps from TKD. Reread the previous quote from Young, including what Lee Yong-bok, Song Duk-ki's senior student, one of his very few and Chair of the Taekkyon Research Association, says about real taekkyon, traditional taekyon. I've highlighted them in red, just so there won't be any mistake. The point is that during the course of its reconstruction the '80s, nouveau Taekkyon picked up its complex spinning kicks from TKD, by which time those kicks were well established in competition TKD circles. The low pushing and stomping maneuvers that were its trademark are the things it always had.

I've also read several accounts of Won Kuk Lee being a Taekkyon student as a teenager. The official accounts say that he left for Japan at age 19 to attend school. They never say what he did BEFORE he left for Japan. I've also read at least one account in TaekwondoTimes (I forget who it was) that stated GGM Lee did teach some Taekkyon as part of his curriculum. Lee stated he learned from a "Mr. Kim". This would have been around 1920 in Seoul.

You can appeal all you like to evidence that you can't produce, YM, but this is all a version of the 'monks practicing in secret in the mountains who left no records', the kind of story which is in principle impossible to test. It's like saying that the pyramids were actually built by invisible aliens who left no traces of themselves and had the mental power to alter people's memories. Go ahead, prove it's not true. Provide some documentation. If you can't, there is absolutely no way to check the validity of the scenario(s) you're suggesting—and the burden of proof is on you, in this case. As it stands, neither third-hand sources that you can't pin down or produce, or your impressions of what reassembled Taekkyon kicks look like, constitute anything like evidence that would hold up in court, or even get you a court date in the first place.

 

[SageGhost83]

Actually, I was taught low kicks many years ago that are very similar to the low kicks Taekkyon does (sweeping kicks to the calves and ankles as opposed to power kicks such as karate does).
I also tend to believe that Taekkyon would be much less open to change (i.e. trading with Taekwondo and learning it's kicks). The kicks I see Taekkyon students doing match the published accounts I've read (Robert Young, Dakin Burdick etc.), which leads me to believe Taekkyon did/does more than simply low kicks. Anyway, how could it pick up those kicks from TKD if TKD didn't do them?
I've also read several accounts of Won Kuk Lee being a Taekkyon student as a teenager. The official accounts say that he left for Japan at age 19 to attend school. They never say what he did BEFORE he left for Japan. I've also read at least one account in TaekwondoTimes (I forget who it was) that stated GGM Lee did teach some Taekkyon as part of his curriculum. Lee stated he learned from a "Mr. Kim". This would have been around 1920 in Seoul.

Okay, first things first:
1. Traditional Taekkyon practiced stepping and stomping kicks, so unless your practice included stepping and stomping kicks, then you weren't doing Taekkyon kicks.
2. There are two forms of Taekkyon - traditional and modern revival. That alone should tell you that they are open to change.
3. Modern Taekkyon revival did borrow many techniques from TKD because those fancy flying kicks were not part of traditional Taekkyon. Modern Taekkyon is a "MODERN REVIVAL" and it came to fruition in a Korea that was and still is dominated by TKD. It is funny those kicks appear in the modern version but not in the traditional version, don't you think? Modern Taekkyon revival is not the same art as traditional Taekkyon. So you can't point to the modern version and say "look, there is proof" because it is not the traditional version that was being practiced back in the day. Plus, the Taekkyon guys have denied the link, themselves.
4. Exile has posted the article by Robert Young countless times. Don't try to put words in Robert Young's mouth.
5. Never, ever, for the love of all that is holy YM, trust the articles in TKDT:boing2:! Okay, to be fair, they have a good one every now and then, but for the most part, the articles are...well, I'd better not say.

Okay, now that that is out of the way:

Unless you have some hard evidence to present to us on the matter, then all of what you are saying is merely supposition. They never say what he did before he left for Japan, that is true, however, just because they never said what he did before he left for Japan doesn't automatically mean that he must have done Taekkyon. As far as we know, he could have simply done *nothing*, after all, the Koreans did look down on the practice of martial arts as something barbaric. However, I can't say that that is a fact just because it *might* have been - facts require hard evidence to back them up and I don't have any hard evidence to back up a supposition that I made on my part. So that line of reasoning doesn't fly, either. Again, we are taking the hard evidence that we already have collected and we are going from there, not from suppositions that are not supported by any kind of evidence whatsoever.

 

[YoungMan]

First of all, I do practice stepping and stomping kicks. I learned those many years ago. I don't mean Olympic sparring technique either, I mean stepping and sliding techniques learned before I ever knew of Olympic style (which I don't practice BTW). The video footage I've seen of Taekkyon clearly shows the sliding and stepping kicks I originally learned. Japanese karate doesn't do those kicks. It also shows the flowing back and forth partner sparring almost exactly like we used to do.
Now before you start questioning the validity of Youtube clips, many martial art examples are on Youtube as well. You telling me they don't exist either?
Second, I don't read Tae Kwon Do Times. To me, it is a joke of a martial arts magazine. I agree, once in a great while they will have something interesting. Not very often though.
Third, I've never seen Taekkyon students doing the so-called TKD techniques you claim they got from them. That includes jumping side kick and flying side kicks. I have seen them do push kicks, wheel kicks, back roundhouse kicks, jumping back roundhouse, high front kicks and jumping front kicks. Primarily circular techniques as opposed to hard linear techniques. All of these are kicks Tae Kwon Do supposedly didn't do orginally, so how could Taekkyon copy them from Taekwondo? How can you copy from someone what they don't have? Moreover, how would Taekkyon have those kicks if they supposedly didn't have them? The published accounts I've read state that Taekkyon or it's precursors were known for circular and high/jumping kicks. Low kicks perhaps, but the high Taekwondo-like kicks as well.

 

[YoungMan]

Nobosy believed Copernicus, Galileo, or Einstein either.

 

[exile]

Second, I don't read Tae Kwon Do Times. To me, it is a joke of a martial arts magazine. I agree, once in a great while they will have something interesting. Not very often though.

I'm not sure why you think your reading preferences in MA magazines bear on the discussion, since none of the sources in this discussion, not one that I've referred to, are in Taekwondo Times. Which suggests that you either aren't reading sufficiently carefully or you're exploring some private track of thought that doesn't have any bearing on the discussion (something I initially suspected after you kept complaining about my references in discussions of this particular issue to 'British karate writers', in spite of the fact that I've never once invoked a British karate writer on the subject of taekkyon; this latest bit about TKD Times sems to be more of the same). I won't venture to guess which one it is. But whichever it is, you don't seem to be aware that you've just massively contradicted a stack of your previous posts in which you insist that TKD must have gotten its kicking techs from Taekkyon because the kicks from the two activities look so similar! Allow me quote you:

From your current post:

Third, I've never seen Taekkyon students doing the so-called TKD techniques you claim they got from them. That includes jumping side kick and flying side kicks. I have seen them do push kicks, wheel kicks, back roundhouse kicks, jumping back roundhouse, high front kicks and jumping front kicks. Primarily circular techniques as opposed to hard linear techniques.

From one of your earliest posts:

Over the last several years, something I have tried to do is cross reference the content of Tae Kyon, since many people say it led to Tae Kwon Do, while just as many people say it didn't.
What I have is consistant proof through video footage and written text that Tae Kyon gave Tae Kwon Do many of the kicking techniques it now uses.
Why do I make that statement?
1. Consistant footage on Youtube (a great resource btw) that shows Taekyon fighters doing the same kicking attacks (many of the same kicking anyway) modern TKD uses. These include: roundhouse, stepping attacks, spinning kicks, jumping kicks, and jump spinning kicks...

I'm going to let readers judge for themselves exactly how consistent the story you were trying to tell then and the one you're trying to tell now, are. :lol: But so far I'm concerned, this exercise in warp-speed backtracking is pretty much the reductio ad absurdum we wind up with, after spending a sufficient amount of time confronting you with the historical documentation that exists. I think, if you want to continue defending your point, you should decide which of these 180º-opposed stories you actually want to tell, and stick to it, eh?

Nobosy believed Copernicus, Galileo, or Einstein either.

Right. That's why Einsten won the 1921 physics Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, and why Sir Arthur Eddington's 1919 eclipse measurements of the gravitational lensing effect of large masses was taken by the scientific world as definitive confirmation of Einstein's theory of General relativity published only two years earlier.

Eddington's observations published next year (Dyson, F.W., Eddington, A.S., & Davidson, C.R. 1920 A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919 Mem. R. Astron. Soc., 220, 291-333) confirmed Einstein's theory, and were hailed at the time as a conclusive proof of general relativity over the Newtonian model. The news was reported in newspapers all over the world as a major story. Afterward, Eddington embarked on a campaign to popularize relativity and the expedition as landmarks both in scientific development and international scientific relations.​

That's why the biggest prize in science after WWI was the construction of a theory of quantum mechanics compatible with special relativity...

No one believed Einstein, no indeed... :rofl:

BTW, your comments about Copernicus and Galileo have about the same relationship to the historical events as your remark about Einstein. As you can discover for yourself by doing a little actual research using real historical sources. Just like with taekkyon, eh?

And finally, your comment suggests that you're comparing yourself with Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein. I'm sure you don't mean to do that, really... but the way you put it gives that impression.

So let's leave the great scientists of the past and their achievements out of this, OK? What they said and what you said have nothing to do with each other. You've been talking about taekkyon, and what we have at the moment are two totally incompatible stories that you're trying to tell, something that none of the scientists you mentioned ever found themselves in the position of doing. You persist in bringing something you read, or something you heard, with no actual sources, as though we're supposed to take that as having any weight. And so on. Do you really think that any of this is going to count with an objective, detached reader as offsetting the huge amount of opposing, carefully documented historical material that—in spite of your references to Young and Burdick—there's no reason so far to think you've actually read?

 

[terryl965]

I can see we are all just going to go round and round and never make any forward progress. Well I will be looking into other avenues so we can really understand what it is we are all talking about, me it is about the history and timeframe of what has become TKD and what and who has had the biggest influence in beginning it to where it is today.

 

[SageGhost83]

First of all, I do practice stepping and stomping kicks. I learned those many years ago. I don't mean Olympic sparring technique either, I mean stepping and sliding techniques learned before I ever knew of Olympic style (which I don't practice BTW). The video footage I've seen of Taekkyon clearly shows the sliding and stepping kicks I originally learned. Japanese karate doesn't do those kicks. It also shows the flowing back and forth partner sparring almost exactly like we used to do.
Now before you start questioning the validity of Youtube clips, many martial art examples are on Youtube as well. You telling me they don't exist either?
Second, I don't read Tae Kwon Do Times. To me, it is a joke of a martial arts magazine. I agree, once in a great while they will have something interesting. Not very often though.
Third, I've never seen Taekkyon students doing the so-called TKD techniques you claim they got from them. That includes jumping side kick and flying side kicks. I have seen them do push kicks, wheel kicks, back roundhouse kicks, jumping back roundhouse, high front kicks and jumping front kicks. Primarily circular techniques as opposed to hard linear techniques. All of these are kicks Tae Kwon Do supposedly didn't do orginally, so how could Taekkyon copy them from Taekwondo? How can you copy from someone what they don't have? Moreover, how would Taekkyon have those kicks if they supposedly didn't have them? The published accounts I've read state that Taekkyon or it's precursors were known for circular and high/jumping kicks. Low kicks perhaps, but the high Taekwondo-like kicks as well.

You don't read TKDT? Then why did you say, and I quote, "I've also read at least one account in TaekwondoTimes (I forget who it was) that stated GGM Lee did teach some Taekkyon as part of his curriculum." ? I won't even get into your major contradiction about Taekkyon, Exile already did the honors with that one. Hmmm, constantly going back and forth, contradicting yourself - those are all symptoms of.....wait a minute.....I knew I smelled something.....A LARGE PILE OF BS! There are so many points in your post that I could downright blow right out of the water right now that it doesn't even make sense to continue doing it. I am quite sure that the forum and the readers by this time have made up their minds about the subject. You absolutely refuse to accept that you have been had big time, and instead you continue to deny and challenge *actual evidence* from those who have nothing to gain from the situation but just want to get to the truth of the matter. Are you that deeply in denial!? At least have the courage to stick to one story and go down with the ship, your flip flopping is only making you look even worse than you already do. Your supposition holds absolutely no weight in the face of the hard evidence that has already been collected by people who are far more qualified on the subject of history than all of us put together. And Youtube? Are you freaking kidding me? You are trying to make a legitimate claim using Youtube? I won't even go into just how naive and juvenile that is, but man, that says a lot about you in and of itself. We should ignore the carefully researched efforts of scholars and historians in favor of friggin Youtube for crying out loud! I would've thought that you were making a joke if you weren't so insistent! Man, you would've been better off quoting TKDT than Youtube! Bad Youngman! No Youngman treats for you :lol:!

 

[SageGhost83]

Nobosy believed Copernicus, Galileo, or Einstein either.

Dude, you are not even in their league. Not even close.

 

[SageGhost83]

And Youtube? Are you freaking kidding me? You are trying to make a legitimate claim using Youtube?

Youngman, there is an absurd amount of Korean propaganda on Youtube, so they are not exactly the most trustworthy of all sources. Heck, my Korean friends and I laugh at it and it has become the butt of many of our jokes. We love to "discuss" it over a plate of Kalbi . Good times, my friend, good times.

 

[SageGhost83]

A really nice and intelligent person told me something about hogs and wrasslin, so I think that I will humbly bow out of this merry-go-round of nonsense, as well.