Acceptable Levels of Ineptness
Mike Sigman
I saw a post recently where someone recommended a teacher to someone else on
the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
for a child-molestation charge. I didn't share what I knew, mainly
because it was not particularly germane to the question and besides, I fight
enough battles without getting involved in that one. (BTW, this really
happened)
Was that the right thing to do?
For people that think divulging that sort of truth is the correct thing to
do.... where do you draw the line? What if someone claims that there
teacher studied with a famous master for many years when in fact that's not
the truth and you know it. Should you sit mum and not say a word? Is it
just too bad if that crowd attracts students and the money is paid for
misrepresented goods?
How about if so-and-so claims he is great because he won some dinky "All
Asia" tournament and it turns out it was a bogus tournament or was just a
hum-drum nobody-good-was-there tournament. Are you a bad guy if you
comment on that? Are "running down some really high-level teachers" if you
question the claims that are made by the supporters?
Are you wrong to point out the other side of any grandiose claim? Is there
a level of ineptness where you have a responsibility to at least say
something? What's the level? :^)
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Mehran Habibi
Mike Sigman wrote:
> <snip>Are you wrong to point out the other side of any grandiose claim? Is
> there
> a level of ineptness where you have a responsibility to at least say
> something? What's the level? :^)
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Sigman
It's not really your place Mike: People need to bump into shit sometimes. If
they join this teacher and don't see the things you're talking about after a
time, then they got what they were looking for(even if it's not what they _said_
what they looking for, or if it's not what you thing they need). Either that or
you were wrong.
M
Mike Sigman
Mehran Habibi wrote in message <37286E0F...@cis.ohio-state.edu>...
>
>
>It's not really your place Mike: People need to bump into shit sometimes.
If
>they join this teacher and don't see the things you're talking about after
a
>time, then they got what they were looking for(even if it's not what they
_said_
>what they looking for, or if it's not what you thing they need). Either
that or
>you were wrong.
OK, but let's put it on a more personal basis. A lot of people tend to be
more free in theory when a subject is impersonal, but they don't really
stick with the theories when they become personally involved. :^)
So if I were to ask you an opinion about Teacher So-and-So, I could expect a
reasonable probability that you would not tell me the negatives? In other
words, I'm now not sure how accurate are your judgements?
Or let's turn it around. Let's say that your wife has decided to take
Taiji from someone and I know something that it would probably save her a
lot of time and effort to avoid. I know things that are not just my opinion
but are opinions that would be shared by skilled practitioners. But
let's say I say nothing because I want to be diplomatic and besides, I
figure that "she got what she was looking for and people need to bum into
shit sometimes". Actually, many people learn to like what they have been
taught, right or wrong... it's a common scenario.
So you would look at it as sort of Kismet? Don't interfere? Is there no
level of ineptness that you would suggest warrants intervention?
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Kevin
> Mike Sigman wrote:
> > <snip>Are you wrong to point out the other side of any grandiose
> > claim? Is there a level of ineptness where you have a
> > responsibility to at least say something? What's the level? :^)
> It's not really your place Mike: People need to bump into shit sometimes. If
> they join this teacher and don't see the things you're talking about after a
> time, then they got what they were looking for(even if it's not what they
> _said_ what they looking for, or if it's not what you thing they need).
> Either that or you were wrong.
Does that apply to someone you know is about to register
their children in a martial arts school where the head
instructor has done time for sex offenses with children?
I don't think so. Sometimes you just can't 'em "bump
into shit", sometimes you can.
:o)
Kevin
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mehran Habibi
Mike Sigman wrote:
> Mehran Habibi wrote in message <37286E0F...@cis.ohio-state.edu>...
> >
> >
> >It's not really your place Mike: People need to bump into shit sometimes.
> If
> >they join this teacher and don't see the things you're talking about after
> a
> >time, then they got what they were looking for(even if it's not what they
> _said_
> >what they looking for, or if it's not what you thing they need). Either
> that or
> >you were wrong.
>
> OK, but let's put it on a more personal basis. A lot of people tend to be
> more free in theory when a subject is impersonal, but they don't really
> stick with the theories when they become personally involved. :^)
>
> So if I were to ask you an opinion about Teacher So-and-So, I could expect a
> reasonable probability that you would not tell me the negatives? In other
> words, I'm now not sure how accurate are your judgements?
>
If you asked me _personally_, and we're friends, it's one issue. If you go to
the local gathering spot and scream it @ the top of your lungs, then the only
appropriate responses are 1) ignoring you, 2) pretending not to hear you.
>
> Or let's turn it around. Let's say that your wife has decided to take
> Taiji from someone and I know something that it would probably save her a
> lot of time and effort to avoid.
Like telling her to study something practical?<ducking>
> <snip>
> So you would look at it as sort of Kismet? Don't interfere? Is there no
> level of ineptness that you would suggest warrants intervention?
>
There's probably _some_ level(and such a level would be reached more quickly for
someone I cared about then someone I _didn't_ care about). All and all though, I
don't try to save people from their own mistakes, unless I'm _so_ concerned
with their well being that I'm willing to violate their rights(and their trust)
enough to jeopardize their love for me. It's not a popular ideology these days,
but it's the right thing to do: A man's rights are more important then his life.
M
Russell L. Rader
>
> Are you wrong to point out the other side of any grandiose claim? Is there
> a level of ineptness where you have a responsibility to at least say
> something? What's the level? :^)
You're not wrong to give your opinion, but you're not obliged to give it
either, in most cases. Just be prepared to be attacked if you diss
someone, even if they deserve it. It just depends on how strongly you
care about it.
Now, the matter about the child molester was different. If I were a
parent, I would sure as hell want to know if I was sending my child to
such a person. Even if he was perhaps not guilty of the charge, I
wouldn't risk it with any child of mine. No child should have to "bump
into" that kind of shit, as Mehran puts it.
Just my $0.02
Russ
Mike Sigman
David Kay wrote in message <1s_V2.22407$MB3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
>I think that responsibility comes into it if you see that someone may be
>harmed, or perhaps even just seriously inconvenienced, and there is
>something that you could do or say that may help them to avoid it. If I
saw
>someone about to walk into a deep pot-hole - either literal or
>metaphorical - I would have a responsibility to say something.
Exactly. I hear a lot of talk about "fellow martial artists" and the
respect and obligation stuff, but amazingly enough many people will not
bother to say anything that might "save" their "fellow martial artists".
They don't really care that much.
I had some surreal conversations with a tournament promoter about a guy whom
he allowed to teach workshops, judge events, etc., etc. He actually knew
that this teacher's credentials were bogus and that the person had not
really studied Bagua..... yet he rationalized it by saying "but he does a
lot to promote the art of Bagua so I let him do those things". As a
result of that kind of attitude, many people have paid money to learn bogus
Bagua from this guy. By letting it happen, did this promoter do something
good, neutral, or bad?
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
Mehran Habibi wrote in message <3728745D...@cis.ohio-state.edu>...
>
>If you asked me _personally_, and we're friends, it's one issue. If you go
to
>the local gathering spot and scream it @ the top of your lungs, then the
only
>appropriate responses are 1) ignoring you, 2) pretending not to hear you.
>
Yeah, but you're not dealing with the more common scenario. The common
scenario is that Joe Schmoe jumps up at the local gathering spot and says
"Teacher X is the greatest and he studied with Wun Hung Lo for 10 years".
The question is whether you should reply at the local gathering spot after
an announcement like that.
>>
>> Or let's turn it around. Let's say that your wife has decided to take
>> Taiji from someone and I know something that it would probably save her a
>> lot of time and effort to avoid.
>
>Like telling her to study something practical?<ducking>
>
Hey, I agree. If you asked me about some teacher and I thought what they
taught was BS and impractical (as is most of the Taiji taught in the West),
I'd suggest you send her elsewhere. If you've ever seen me reply to the
question for which martial art to take, you'll have noticed that I usually
suggest Judo or Aikido.
>> <snip>
>> So you would look at it as sort of Kismet? Don't interfere? Is there
no
>> level of ineptness that you would suggest warrants intervention?
>>
>
>There's probably _some_ level(and such a level would be reached more
quickly for
>someone I cared about then someone I _didn't_ care about). All and all
though, I
>don't try to save people from their own mistakes, unless I'm _so_
concerned
>with their well being that I'm willing to violate their rights(and their
trust)
>enough to jeopardize their love for me.
Alas. I'm afeered that you wouldn't save me from the clutches of an evil
charlatan. And here I thought we were brother martial artists. I am
dismayed. :^)
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
Russell L. Rader wrote in message <372876...@ford.com>...
>Mike Sigman wrote:
>
>You're not wrong to give your opinion, but you're not obliged to give it
>either, in most cases. Just be prepared to be attacked if you diss
>someone, even if they deserve it. It just depends on how strongly you
>care about it.
>
Wow. Exactly my thoughts, too.
>Now, the matter about the child molester was different. If I were a
>parent, I would sure as hell want to know if I was sending my child to
>such a person. Even if he was perhaps not guilty of the charge, I
>wouldn't risk it with any child of mine. No child should have to "bump
>into" that kind of shit, as Mehran puts it.
Hard to say about Mehran.... you know how them foreigners are. :^)))
Actually, I think Mehran shot from the lip and would be more forthright than
his reply indicated.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Mehran Habibi
Mike Sigman wrote:
> <snip> No child should have to "bump
> >into" that kind of shit, as Mehran puts it.
>
> Hard to say about Mehran.... you know how them foreigners are. :^)))
>
> Actually, I think Mehran shot from the lip and would be more forthright than
> his reply indicated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Sigman
No, I actually wouldn't. I've this sort of issue a great of thought, and I've
decided that I'm pretty old school liberal when it comes to issues like privacy,
rights, etc. I appreciate the chance to allow me to save face: I just don't
think there's any to save on this issue.
M
Chas
> >either, in most cases. Just be prepared to be attacked if you diss
> >someone, even if they deserve it. It just depends on how strongly you
> >care about it.
> Wow. Exactly my thoughts, too.
Proceed Strongly! Persevere, persevere-
As my Sainted Grandmother used to say; 'Get a Whip!'
More people need to expose charlatans, question the 'authorities',
expose the politics and financial machinations.
Mike- you're never been other than absolutely straightforward in my
limited experience with you- sometimes I didn't know which point you
were straightforward *at*, but you've always conducted yourself in a
reasonable and civil manner.
It is good for the art to have conflicts and tests and performance
evaluations by confrontive strangers. No art should be without pain,
hazard and stress- manufacture them as you can-
Fuck, I may form a Fan Club....
Chas
Mehran Habibi
Kevin wrote:
> Mehran Habibi wrote:
> > Mike Sigman wrote:
>
> > > <snip>Are you wrong to point out the other side of any grandiose
> > > claim? Is there a level of ineptness where you have a
> > > responsibility to at least say something? What's the level? :^)
> > It's not really your place Mike: People need to bump into shit sometimes. If
> > they join this teacher and don't see the things you're talking about after a
> > time, then they got what they were looking for(even if it's not what they
> > _said_ what they looking for, or if it's not what you thing they need).
> > Either that or you were wrong.
>
> Does that apply to someone you know is about to register
> their children in a martial arts school where the head
> instructor has done time for sex offenses with children?
>
> I don't think so. Sometimes you just can't 'em "bump
> into shit", sometimes you can.
>
> :o)
> Kevin
Of course not: I already covered that when I said "
There's probably _some_ level(and such a level would be reached more quickly for
someone I cared about then someone I _didn't_ care about).". I would put a little
kid into the realm of some I cared more about.
M
Kevin
> Kevin wrote:
> > Does that apply to someone you know is about to register
> > their children in a martial arts school where the head
> > instructor has done time for sex offenses with children?
> Of course not: I already covered that when I said "
> There's probably _some_ level(and such a level would be reached
> more quickly for someone I cared about then someone I _didn't_
> care about).". I would put a little kid into the realm of some
> I cared more about.
Ah; okay, was just checking. I would suppose it varies
as well with the seriousness of the problem; knowing a
person wanting to learn self defense because they may need
it is about to enroll in a strip mall tae-bo academy -
I'd be real tempted to point out the problem.
Joe idiot who insists that so and so the internal master
is his personal god needs to lose a few bucks the hard way.
d...@wingchun.com
: I saw a post recently where someone recommended a teacher to someone else on
: the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
: for a child-molestation charge. I didn't share what I knew, mainly
: because it was not particularly germane to the question and besides, I fight
: enough battles without getting involved in that one. (BTW, this really
: happened)
Yikes.
: Was that the right thing to do?
Probably not. Even if this guy has martial skills--he has a problem in terms
of controlling himself and is essentially a predator of the weak.
Now, you could either publically out him, or simply respond to the person
in private who asked the question and state that they would be advised to
seek instruction with someone else--especially if there are actual
qualified teachers in their area.
: For people that think divulging that sort of truth is the correct thing to
: do.... where do you draw the line? What if someone claims that there
: teacher studied with a famous master for many years when in fact that's not
: the truth and you know it. Should you sit mum and not say a word? Is it
No. There is too much of that going on already.
: just too bad if that crowd attracts students and the money is paid for
: misrepresented goods?
That is what leads to a general weakening of the arts in general.
: How about if so-and-so claims he is great because he won some dinky "All
: Asia" tournament and it turns out it was a bogus tournament or was just a
: hum-drum nobody-good-was-there tournament. Are you a bad guy if you
: comment on that? Are "running down some really high-level teachers" if you
: question the claims that are made by the supporters?
Well tournaments are really a measure of much other than the fact that
one showed up. It is so hard to judge what the quality of opponents was
at a particular event. It is common for many to claim to be tournament
champions. I'm still confused how there can be so many brazillian BJJ guys
who were all champions in brazil during the same years. They don't imply
they were champs of just some province or portion of a city, more that
they were the BJJ world champion or whatever. How many can there be at once?
How often is it that a competant fighter is simply faced with tomato cans?
Is it reality that most people would be TC's and not competant fighers?
Me? I wouldn't worry about the tourney scene, nor comment on it that much.
The places where that sort of thing are going to be important is when
someone is going to take an art specifically because they want to do
tournament events themselves.
: Are you wrong to point out the other side of any grandiose claim? Is there
: a level of ineptness where you have a responsibility to at least say
: something? What's the level? :^)
I don't think so(ie you are not wrong to present the other side).
While we aren't self appointed guardians of the truth,
if there are questions regarding lineage, skill level, criminal behavior,
or teaching incompetance or out and out greed--forewarned is forearmed.
It is of course then not surprising that many will STILL go right ahead
and plunk down their cash to train with someone in something that doesn't
even resemble the art they are "seeking" or learn from someone who has
lied about their lineage, their arts history or lied about who their
teachers are/were. Especially when there is evidence to show otherwise.
You can't force people to question incompetance, you can simply offer
an indication when asked. Many will still chose the wrong path--but they'll
get what they were maybe after--which probably was not what they were
really indicating to begin with. They didn't want competancy as a teacher,
they wanted fame as a teacher. My teacher is "famous", (he's in IKF, BB,
etc.) therefore I am a good person too. The being a Badass by association.
: Regards,
: Mike Sigman
--
David Williams mailto:d...@wingchun.com
Planet Wing Chun http://www.wingchun.com/
Bay Area Wing Chun Association http://www.thesphere.com/SJWC
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman wrote in message ...
>
>Chas wrote in message <372880A1...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>Fuck, I may form a Fan Club....
>
>
>
>
>
Oooops... I meant to send that to Chas... not gum up rma. Apologies.
Mike
Paul Phoenix
> lot to promote the art of Bagua so I let him do those things". As a
> result of that kind of attitude, many people have paid money to learn bogus
> Bagua from this guy. By letting it happen, did this promoter do something
> good, neutral, or bad?
Isn't it Fraud?
--
Support the Fun Institute --> http://fly.to/adp
"Super Karate Monkey" alias "Big Moody Bastard"
Paul Phoenix
Mehran Habibi
Mike Sigman wrote:
> Chas wrote in message <372880A1...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> >Fuck, I may form a Fan Club....
>
> Great. I'll send you my official photo, suitable for framing. :^)
>
Er, can you make that a .gif,. .jpeg, somthin?
M
Philip Nikolayev
Cheers,
Philip
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> writes:
> I saw a post recently where someone recommended a teacher to someone else on
> the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
> for a child-molestation charge. I didn't share what I knew, mainly
> because it was not particularly germane to the question and besides, I fight
> enough battles without getting involved in that one. (BTW, this really
> happened)
>
> Was that the right thing to do?
>
> For people that think divulging that sort of truth is the correct thing to
> do.... where do you draw the line? What if someone claims that there
> teacher studied with a famous master for many years when in fact that's not
> the truth and you know it. Should you sit mum and not say a word? Is it
> just too bad if that crowd attracts students and the money is paid for
> misrepresented goods?
>
> How about if so-and-so claims he is great because he won some dinky "All
> Asia" tournament and it turns out it was a bogus tournament or was just a
> hum-drum nobody-good-was-there tournament. Are you a bad guy if you
> comment on that? Are "running down some really high-level teachers" if you
> question the claims that are made by the supporters?
>
> Are you wrong to point out the other side of any grandiose claim? Is there
> a level of ineptness where you have a responsibility to at least say
> something? What's the level? :^)
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Sigman
Mehran Habibi
Philip Nikolayev wrote:
> The truth, the whole, and nothing but.
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
>
The truth is not more important then it's tone and context.
M
John Drake
Mike Sigman wrote:
> I saw a post recently where someone recommended a teacher to someone else on
> the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
> for a child-molestation charge. I didn't share what I knew, mainly
> because it was not particularly germane to the question and besides, I fight
> enough battles without getting involved in that one. (BTW, this really
> happened)
>
> Was that the right thing to do?
On the child molester, I'd send an email to the person(s) involved in private.
A parent would need to be informed. You never know if this person might
be considering enrolling his/her child in a class.
> For people that think divulging that sort of truth is the correct thing to
> do.... where do you draw the line? What if someone claims that there
> teacher studied with a famous master for many years when in fact that's not
> the truth and you know it. Should you sit mum and not say a word? Is it
> just too bad if that crowd attracts students and the money is paid for
> misrepresented goods?
Well to me this case is not as serious as the first one you mentioned.
Personally I would ignore it unless I had some direct connection with
the "famous master" involved. (But then if I didn't have such a connection
I suppose I wouldn't know for sure that this other guy hadn't trained
under him.) In any event I would inform the master of this person's
claims and let him/her respond to it.
> How about if so-and-so claims he is great because he won some dinky "All
> Asia" tournament and it turns out it was a bogus tournament or was just a
> hum-drum nobody-good-was-there tournament. Are you a bad guy if you
> comment on that? Are "running down some really high-level teachers" if you
> question the claims that are made by the supporters?
This is a case that I would feel the LEAST impetus to do anything about.
But in this newsgroup people often do take this one on. (Did Frank Dux
really compete in Kumite or didn't he?) Don't know. Don't care.
assets.wharton.upenn.edu
: I saw a post recently where someone recommended a teacher to someone else on
: the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
: for a child-molestation charge. I didn't share what I knew, mainly
: because it was not particularly germane to the question and besides, I fight
: enough battles without getting involved in that one. (BTW, this really
: happened)
: Was that the right thing to do?
Child molesting is serious and anyone who has a record in this probably
should be barred for life from teaching. And that is probably the norm in
many states in regards to teaching. Now if the martial arts schools are
not regulated and, moreover, are private, the law may not apply here.
What is the law in regards to this person and the state he is in? Is he
teaching children now? Child molesting is extremely difficult to "treat"
so recidivism can be extraordinarily high. And with the new laws, in
some states, he may be required to register with the police. Teaching
and child molesting is an ugly combination.
: For people that think divulging that sort of truth is the correct thing to
: do.... where do you draw the line? What if someone claims that there
: teacher studied with a famous master for many years when in fact that's not
: the truth and you know it. Should you sit mum and not say a word? Is it
: just too bad if that crowd attracts students and the money is paid for
: misrepresented goods?
I appreciate your skepticism and makes me re-consider. It's a bummer
that when I check out the facts, things are not as they claimed. I wish
it were otherwise.
: How about if so-and-so claims he is great because he won some dinky "All
: Asia" tournament and it turns out it was a bogus tournament or was just a
: hum-drum nobody-good-was-there tournament. Are you a bad guy if you
: comment on that? Are "running down some really high-level teachers" if you
: question the claims that are made by the supporters?
Are you talking about Cheng Man-ch'ing's student William CC Chen who, in
turn, taught, was it Peter Ralston???, who was the first westerner/white
person to win any southeast asia all-open tournament?
I do not know much about him although I liked what he said in interviews
at the time, that it was difficult to extract out the knowledge from
William CC Chen, but that seems to be about the norm for that heritage of
taiji where the students have to persevere to extract out the info.
About William CC Chen, I heard good things. He appears to be someone who
has mastered taiji and can use it in fighting situations, extremely rare
as is generally thought in the USA. What can I say except I have not
heard anything else much like that for the teachers around here.
Excepting one taiji student, a quiet one, who told me he successfully
defended himself against 3 guys in our local bar who did not like his
quiet demeanor and very long beard. And he used taiji when they attacked
him on the blind side and behind while he was sitting on a stool. OTOH, a
taiji instructor remarked to me he tried to use taiji when assaulted but
had to resort to the old thump upside his head and was a bit chagrined.
So I was impressed mightily with the quiet, pacifistic (sic) taiji
student.
I have never laid eyes on Chen but have heard he can take it and can dish
it out. But he has not competed in many decades now. But taiji folks
don't do the competition circuit so it's hard to say a whole lot.
What does one do? Do you try and push hands with the well-known taiji
folks, like Benjamin Lo? Is that how one goes about in a gentle way to
test someone's taiji abilities?
: Are you wrong to point out the other side of any grandiose claim? Is there
: a level of ineptness where you have a responsibility to at least say
: something? What's the level? :^)
: Regards,
: Mike Sigman
It's a tough call. I can recall when enthralled with one of Professor
Cheng Man-ch'ing's devoted student/teachers until I spoke with someone who
studied, as an ordinary student, under the Professor. He said something
which really took me aback. Had little to do with the Professor's taiji
abilities. But may have had a lot to do with his untimely death at 75.
I'm not ready to sign my name, but working up to it.
If you care to reply, that's great, Mike.
Un-sig'ed
Mike Sigman
@assets.wharton.upenn.edu <@assets.wharton.upenn.edu> wrote in message
<7ga5p2
>: How about if so-and-so claims he is great because he won some dinky "All
>: Asia" tournament and it turns out it was a bogus tournament or was just a
>: hum-drum nobody-good-was-there tournament. Are you a bad guy if you
>: comment on that? Are "running down some really high-level teachers" if
you
>: question the claims that are made by the supporters?
>
>Are you talking about Cheng Man-ch'ing's student William CC Chen who
No, not specifically, I'm not talking about him. I just meant the general
case where peoples' credentials would usually be fairly hum-drum and
over-hyped if you really looked at them.
I think that the point of concern here is that you would HOPE that people
interested in martial arts would be analytical and probing, always trying to
find the truth. The horrible reality is that so many are trying to sell
themselves, their teacher, their style, their personal take on things, etc.,
etc., and are doing the exact opposite of clinical honesty.... to the point
that they don't even expect it in others in the martial arts. :^) It's a
game; and sometimes it's such a game that dishonesty is tolerated as being
acceptable.
>I'm not ready to sign my name, but working up to it.
I think that's your business. If you were using a pseudonym to hide
behind and attack people, then I'd say something. If you're anonymous and
discussing issues, I don't see where there's any conflict.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Russell L. Rader
Really? I take it all back, then. ;-)
> Hard to say about Mehran.... you know how them foreigners are. :^)))
>
> Actually, I think Mehran shot from the lip and would be more forthright than
> his reply indicated.
Hmmm, I don't know. I know he wouldn't be afraid to say anything, but I
don't know that he would feel obliged to. Anyway, I just meant that I
think his "bump into shit" comment was not intended to address the child
molestation case.
Russ
tenzenryu
Mike Sigman wrote in message ...
>
on
>the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
>for a child-molestation charge
If it is a moral defect (i.e. money sex or power games) , then warn them
especially woman and kids. If it a defect in technique or teaching then
it's probably none of your business since most of that stuff is a matter of
opinion anyway. Besides while it is probably very hard to teach really good
martial arts it is equally hard to teach really incompetent stuff (e.g when
this guy kicks you block it with your b*lls). Most basic stuff will work if
practised enough and done with the right killer attitude and that's all most
people ever remember to do (if they do anything) so it's not doing them any
self defense disfavours.
The only other time might be if an exercise being taught was really (and I
mean really) bad for your health like on the wrist press ups for kids or
something of that nature. Even this is open to argument at times eg. I
think sanchin done with yo ibuki is about the worst exercise in the world (I
do Goju-ryu too so you can imagine the trouble that gets me in when I refuse
to do it) others would argue it's fine. So the best advice is dont do
something and dont allow your kids and loved ones to do something that is
bad for their health.
Claim some mysterious injury if necessary to avoid giving offence.
Richard
Mehran Habibi
"Russell L. Rader" wrote:
> <snip>Anyway, I just meant that I
> think his "bump into shit" comment was not intended to address the child
> molestation case.
>
> Russ
Correct.
M
Chris L. Kuszmaul
>
>I saw a post recently where someone recommended a teacher to someone else on
>the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
>because it was not particularly germane to the question and besides, I fight
>enough battles without getting involved in that one. (BTW, this really
>happened)
>
>Was that the right thing to do?
>
>Are you wrong to point out the other side of any grandiose claim? Is there
>a level of ineptness where you have a responsibility to at least say
>something? What's the level? :^)
I do not think there is an outright duty to counter any
grandiose claim. However, if I do seek to counter such
a claim, if I seriously am worried that lives or lifestyles
are at stake, then I go to great lengths to get my facts
straight and present myself in a way that helps my case in
the eyes of the readership.
But, hey, sometimes I lose it.
CLK
Chris L. Kuszmaul
>
<snip>
>
>Or let's turn it around. Let's say that your wife has decided to take
>Taiji from someone and I know something that it would probably save her a
>lot of time and effort to avoid.
Well, my wife is pretty smart and can figure out for herself whether
her teacher is wasting her time. If she cannot figure out whether she
is wasting her time, then my wife is going to figure she is wasting
her time, and thats that.
But still, I catch your point. I, personally, want to know everything
you think about someone. The better you substantiate the stuff the
better. (Thats kind of why, back when, I was asking about the
Ki Aikido people you know).
Now, if you ask if I would mind if my instructor would like
a personal test of his skills, then I get kind of figety --- maybe
it adjust my attitude about my instructor a little, but mostly
it adjust my attitude about *you*.
In any case, I personally tend to be reticent about naming
names in public, since I do not know much about *anyone*,
really.
CLK
Mike Sigman
Chris L. Kuszmaul wrote in message <7ga95p$rks$1...@sun500.nas.nasa.gov>...
> Now, if you ask if I would mind if my instructor would like
>a personal test of his skills, then I get kind of figety --- maybe
>it adjust my attitude about my instructor a little, but mostly
>it adjust my attitude about *you*.
Yeah, but if.... as is usually the case.... I am simply responding to a
grandiose claim made about one's instructor before I sugest a reality
check... then if you get "fidgety" and yet you were the one who brought him
up in the first place, then I (we) have to adjust our attitude about YOU.
:^)
Insofar as people who are fanatically loyal to their teachers, style, etc.,
and who are offended by my questions... trust me, those are not the kinds of
people I want to claim as my friends anyway. Their reasoning and beliefs
are already suspect.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Ray Wagner
Well, intended or not, that particular phrase seems to be getting quite
a bit of mileage around here. :)
Ray "wish I was a trendsetter like M" Wagner
Chris L. Kuszmaul
>
>Chris L. Kuszmaul wrote in message <7ga95p$rks$1...@sun500.nas.nasa.gov>...
>
>> Now, if you ask if I would mind if my instructor would like
>>it adjusts my attitude about my instructor a little, but mostly
>>it adjusts my attitude about *you*.
>
>
>Yeah, but if.... as is usually the case.... I am simply responding to a
>grandiose claim made about one's instructor before I sugest a reality
>check... then if you get "fidgety" and yet you were the one who brought him
>up in the first place, then I (we) have to adjust our attitude about YOU.
>:^)
Your strategy does call the charlatin into question, but it draws
so much negative attention to you when you come across so
menacingly, that the charlatin is often forgotten completely.
CLK
Mike Sigman
Chris L. Kuszmaul wrote in message <7gap1b$kk4$1...@sun500.nas.nasa.gov>...
>
> Your strategy does call the charlatin into question, but it draws
>so much negative attention to you when you come across so
>menacingly, that the charlatin is often forgotten completely.
Well, I don't know what to say. Perhaps I should not say anything and just
take the easy way out. Whaddya think? :^)
Actually, you're right to some extent, but you're forgetting that a lot of
people are glad to see someone (I'm not the only one asking questions) call
some claims into question. Sure, some people get a negative impression,
but a lot of people get a positive impression.
Reminds me of the first time I went to the tournament, A Taste of China...
I was horrified at the level that I saw, but I was even more horrified to
hear the self-congratulatory stuff from a lot of the judges, promoters, etc.
But on one afternoon I was by a door where a bunch of people were leaving
after the competitions and I heard more or less a constant drone from people
as they went by talking to each other... "can you believe they call that Tai
Chi?" ... "If that stuff is Tai Chi I don't want to have anything to do with
it; it's a joke", ... etc., etc.
So sure, the people who are deluding themselves get hacked off when someone
doesn't dutifully agree that they are the cat's meow, but a lot of people
are glad to hear someone else say "look mommy, the Emperor doesn't have any
clothes on". :^) If nothing else, I feel safer sticking with the
truth than I do with bullshit. Bullshit always comes back to haunt you.
Mike Sigman
coldblood
Ray Wagner wrote in message <3728B34F...@primary.net>...
>Mehran Habibi wrote:
>>
>> "Russell L. Rader" wrote:
>>
>
>Ray "wish I was a trendsetter like M" Wagner
oh dont we all :)
andrew
David Kay
news:K2_V2.5$8H...@news.rdc1.tx.home.com...
>
> I saw a post recently where someone recommended a teacher to someone else
on
> the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
> for a child-molestation charge. I didn't share what I knew, mainly
> because it was not particularly germane to the question and besides, I
fight
> enough battles without getting involved in that one. (BTW, this really
> happened)
>
> Was that the right thing to do?
I'm not sure there is a "right" and "wrong" thing to do in this case. But
if it was me - and it was somewhere that I expected my kids would be
around - I'd sure rather you told me. It's all very well to learn our own
lessons, but I don't really want my kids learning my lessons for me.
Expecially the kind of "lesson" they could be exposed to in this situation.
> For people that think divulging that sort of truth is the correct thing to
> do.... where do you draw the line? What if someone claims that there
> teacher studied with a famous master for many years when in fact that's
not
> the truth and you know it. Should you sit mum and not say a word? Is
it
> just too bad if that crowd attracts students and the money is paid for
> misrepresented goods?
Most people have no need to fear the truth. There's so much nonsense that
goes around, in all aspects of life, that a little more substantial
information could only help.
> How about if so-and-so claims he is great because he won some dinky "All
> Asia" tournament and it turns out it was a bogus tournament or was just a
> hum-drum nobody-good-was-there tournament. Are you a bad guy if you
> comment on that? Are "running down some really high-level teachers" if
you
> question the claims that are made by the supporters?
No. You're simply telling the truth. Or questioning it. If they are "run
down" by the truth, or seriously threatened by the questions, then that is
because of what they have or have not done, not because of anything that you
have said.
> Are you wrong to point out the other side of any grandiose claim? Is
there
> a level of ineptness where you have a responsibility to at least say
> something? What's the level? :^)
I think that responsibility comes into it if you see that someone may be
harmed, or perhaps even just seriously inconvenienced, and there is
something that you could do or say that may help them to avoid it. If I saw
someone about to walk into a deep pot-hole - either literal or
metaphorical - I would have a responsibility to say something.
Y2Kjerks
>I saw a post recently where someone recommended a teacher to someone else on
>the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
>for a child-molestation charge. I didn't share what I knew, mainly
>because it was not particularly germane to the question and besides, I fight
>enough battles without getting involved in that one. (BTW, this really
>happened)
>
>Was that the right thing to do?
>
I think that informing the proper people of the truth is always best, whether
alerting someone to a claimant's lies, warning someone of a questionable or
criminal past, or debunking frauds. However, I suppose two conditions should
apply-
1) The exchange should probably take place over e-mail, or some other private
correspondence, and
2) The person offering the controversial info should probably have some sort of
evidence, or at least a good argument, otherwise it will be one person's word
against another's, and both groups will just end up more polarized than before.
I truly believe in consumer protection, whether the investment is monetary,
emotional, or social- Unfortunately, hearing the truth makes some people very
upset. Too bad for them, I guess.
As far an 'acceptable level' of ineptness- If the ineptitude is due to the
instructor's lack of experience (i.e., he's only studied the art himself for a
few years or so), then that would be fine as long as he MAKES HIS STUDENTS
AWARE OF HIS LIMITATIONS. And he should probably teach for free, to boot.
If the ineptitude is due to something else, or is actually DETRIMENTAL to a
student's progress and even survival (i.e., he teaches his pupils to practice
'iron groin' or 'bulletproof digestive system' techniques), and especially if
the teacher adopts the facade of a highly qualified master, then CRUCIFY THE
LEECH!! I wish somebody'd been around to warn me of MY first karate
instructor...
This is a refreshingly intriguing topic, BTW.
R
"The line between fact and fiction is a fine one,
and one I think I snorted in 1978." -Kinky Friedman
Mike Sigman
Y2Kjerks wrote in message <19990429233537...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
>>
>
>1) The exchange should probably take place over e-mail, or some other
private
>correspondence, and
>
Maybe, but I don't always agree. Even though it has caused some contention
when I publicly challenge some claims or indicate that something is
false.... I still notice that people get a lot more circumspect the next
time. In fact, a lot of them get just as circumspect as they should have
been in the first place.
>2) The person offering the controversial info should probably have some
sort of
>evidence, or at least a good argument, otherwise it will be one person's
word
>against another's, and both groups will just end up more polarized than
before.
>
I totally agree. If I can't support something, I don't say it. If you
notice for instance with my questions with Robert Smith's student, Stephen
Goodson, he cannot come back with support for the claims he has made. He
has to go silent. Angry, but silent. Is it worth it? Probably... when
these sorts of charlatans are allowed to go unquestioned, the first person
they start taking in are the naive beginners.
>As far an 'acceptable level' of ineptness- If the ineptitude is due to the
>instructor's lack of experience (i.e., he's only studied the art himself
for a
>few years or so), then that would be fine as long as he MAKES HIS STUDENTS
>AWARE OF HIS LIMITATIONS. And he should probably teach for free, to boot.
>
Well, in an ideal world that's true. Unfortunately, you know as well as I
do that these people don't admit that they're amateurs.
>If the ineptitude is due to something else, or is actually DETRIMENTAL to a
>student's progress and even survival (i.e., he teaches his pupils to
practice
>'iron groin' or 'bulletproof digestive system' techniques), and especially
if
>the teacher adopts the facade of a highly qualified master, then CRUCIFY
THE
>LEECH!! I wish somebody'd been around to warn me of MY first karate
>instructor...
Exactly. I've been there, too. Yet, you'd be surprised how many people
will say "oh, don't break the guy's rice bowl... the students will figure it
out sooner or later". Basically that's just a self-centered way of
saying "no skin off my nose".
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Philip Nikolayev
TXHAPKIDO
>he allowed to teach workshops, judge events, etc., etc. He actually knew
>that this teacher's credentials were bogus and that the person had not
>really studied Bagua..... yet he rationalized it by saying "but he does a
>lot to promote the art of Bagua so I let him do those things". As a
>result of that kind of attitude, many people have paid money to learn bogus
>Bagua from this guy. By letting it happen, did this promoter do something
>good, neutral, or bad?
>
>
>Mike Sigman
>
>Mike, if this guy is in Texas, email me and let me know. I don't want to
waste my hard-earned money!
Randall Sexton
Mike Sigman
TXHAPKIDO wrote in message <19990430021626...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
He is. Oh... the other rationalization I heard was "well, he's not legit
but he's no worse than a lot of other Bagua teachers out there who really
aren't very good". :^)
Mike Sigman
Mehran Habibi
Philip Nikolayev wrote:
And what does being a platonist mean to you?
M
SeiserL
want to gather as much information (positive and negative) as possible before I
make my own decision. I tend to accept all information as your personal
perspective and not necessarily the truth. You are free to do the same for me.
In some professions there is a duty to warn if there is reasonable suspicion of
a threat or possibility of harm. I would want to know and would respect the
messenger (not shot them) for their courage to be honest and take some heat
trying to help another. Courage and compassion are high on my value list. To
often our passive silence is tacit permission.
IMHO, There is no acceptable level of ineptness. Zero tolerance. We all are
totally accountable and responsible for ourselves.
Lynn
Tenshinkai Aikido/Lucaylucay Kali
"We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level of our
training." Train well. KWATZ!
Lynn Seiser, PhD MFCC (Sei...@AOL.com)
Informative pages at http://members.aol.com/SeiserL/index.html
"Change is Natural & Inevitable"
Chas
> In some professions there is a duty to warn if there is reasonable suspicion of
> a threat or possibility of harm. I would want to know and would respect the
> trying to help another. Courage and compassion are high on my value list. To
> often our passive silence is tacit permission.
> IMHO, There is no acceptable level of ineptness. Zero tolerance. We all are
> totally accountable and responsible for ourselves.
And in some wise we have a greater responsibility than some other
professions or avocations seem to do.
Our common endeavor speaks to the most basic of human conditions; death,
maiming and pain, conflict and it's resolution, criminality and justice,
karma and judgment... The only thing a martial artist has to present is
his integrity and sense of responsibility.
When we know of a teacher that abuses students, cheats or defrauds them,
appropriates credentialing, initiates cult-like behavior, acts outside
our standards of proper conduct, it is good to call them on it.
This is a very small community we live in- kind of like a small town or
the Guild of Carriage Makers... we need to guard our collective
credibility for honor and integrity.
Chas
Mehran Habibi
Chas wrote:
I agree with your motives("we need to guard our collective credibility for honor and
integrity"), but I have to disagree with your methodology. Guarding our collective
credibility also means that we 1) not make accusations lightly or often and 2) asking
good questions of people who do so attack others. I'm not going to slander a fellow
MA(or person) because I don't _think_ they know what they claim to know(well,
actually, that's not strictly true: you know and I know that I'll say how I feel on
most any damn topic: but attacking a man's good name when one is given- should be
careful work). Generally, I find it best to not pass along rumors or speculations
about person's abilities...unless they _really_ piss me off. But even then, if I'm
honest, I'll admit that I'm doing to strike out @ them, not because I have some
higher obligation to 'truth'.
M
Mike Sigman
Chas wrote in message <3729C22C...@worldnet.att.net>...
>The only thing a martial artist has to present is
>his integrity and sense of responsibility.
>When we know of a teacher that abuses students, cheats or defrauds them,
>appropriates credentialing, initiates cult-like behavior, acts outside
>our standards of proper conduct, it is good to call them on it.
>This is a very small community we live in- kind of like a small town or
>the Guild of Carriage Makers... we need to guard our collective
>credibility for honor and integrity.
Well, in a very many cases... particularly in Taiji and Aikido.... there are
a great number of teachers who justify what they do because they are "nice
people" and they have "good intentions" and they "studied with so-and-so and
he said they could teach". These nice people tend to completely
overlook the obvious indicators like they couldn't fight their way out of a
paper bag, can't really push-hands, and justify their teaching abilities on
having studied for x number of years, got a black belt, etc., etc.
And a lot of these people are truly nice people. But they get in with
those mild self-deceptions... "it's OK if I don't really have any special
skills, I know the form good".... "yeah, this might not work if Uke was
really trying to get my ass, so we'll just have to make him change his
attack so that it works".. etc. These people "mean well" and they're
almost invariably "nice people" (although some outsiders may think they're a
bit smug, but what the hey.... those people don't know what a saint they
are, right?). And sure, they know a few nifty applications... but who
doesn't?
What I'm saying is that the majority of the problems are not necessarily
from the deliberate shams, but from the people who are well-meaning but who
continue to ignore the facts and self-evaluations that would tell them they
are really role playing with funky uniforms, exotic buzzwords, etc. And
everyone is entitled to do that, don't get me wrong. Where it becomes a
valid question though is when you start taking money and selling somebody
the same spiel that you're selling yourself on, regardless of cold facts.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Paul Phoenix
> >The only thing a martial artist has to present is
> >his integrity and sense of responsibility.
> >When we know of a teacher that abuses students, cheats or defrauds them,
> >appropriates credentialing, initiates cult-like behavior, acts outside
> >our standards of proper conduct, it is good to call them on it.
> >This is a very small community we live in- kind of like a small town or
> >the Guild of Carriage Makers... we need to guard our collective
> >credibility for honor and integrity.
> Mike Sigman wrote:
> Well, in a very many cases... particularly in Taiji and Aikido.... there are
> a great number of teachers who justify what they do because they are "nice
> people" and they have "good intentions" and they "studied with so-and-so and
> he said they could teach". These nice people tend to completely
> overlook the obvious indicators like they couldn't fight their way out of a
> paper bag, can't really push-hands, and justify their teaching abilities on
> having studied for x number of years, got a black belt, etc., etc.
>
> And a lot of these people are truly nice people. But they get in with
> those mild self-deceptions... "it's OK if I don't really have any special
> skills, I know the form good".... "yeah, this might not work if Uke was
> really trying to get my ass, so we'll just have to make him change his
> attack so that it works".. etc. These people "mean well" and they're
> almost invariably "nice people" (although some outsiders may think they're a
> bit smug, but what the hey.... those people don't know what a saint they
> are, right?). And sure, they know a few nifty applications... but who
> doesn't?
>
> What I'm saying is that the majority of the problems are not necessarily
> from the deliberate shams, but from the people who are well-meaning but who
> continue to ignore the facts and self-evaluations that would tell them they
> are really role playing with funky uniforms, exotic buzzwords, etc. And
> everyone is entitled to do that, don't get me wrong. Where it becomes a
> valid question though is when you start taking money and selling somebody
> the same spiel that you're selling yourself on, regardless of cold facts.
In other words, you're saying that there are a number of teachers who
aren't very effective fighters. And in your opinion this means that they
are unqualified to teach.
Although I agree with you, and I personally would never train under a
"wimpy" sensi, I think that good teaching skills and thorough knowledge
of the art can make up for the teachers lack of physical ability.
On the same note however, we should recognize that most truly gifted
fighters make for horrible teachers. Remember, IQ has little to do with
strength or coordination, however IQ does play a huge role in a persons
teaching methodology (i.e. better understanding, comprehension,
memorization and problem solving abilities does make for a more helpful
teacher overall).
Like I said, I'm a total hypocrite when it comes to this issue. I really
wouldn't study under a sensi that I could easily defeat. I guess in my
case the main issue is one of respect, its just to hard to find any
respect for a teacher who isn't also an effective fighter.
[....questioning my own statements....]
"being an effective fighter" basically requires a mastery of the art
form in question doesn't it? So perhaps its not possible to be a good
teacher without mastering the art form, since obviously mastery of the
art is the students goal, how would training under someone without said
mastery lead to said goal? Simple answer: Skill is not quantitative,
winning tournaments is not just a question of art form mastery, its also
a question of physical conditioning.
Therefore it may actually be possible to master an art and still have
poor physical ability, women for instance, are inherently weak since
they genetically lack the high testosterone levels required to build the
giant mounds of muscle us guys enjoy running around with. Does this take
away their ability to teach? No. It simply takes away their ability to
effectively compete against equally well trained but stronger opponents
(men). Women however do tend to be more considerate and better
conditioned to listen to and analyze their students (which in my opinion
makes all the difference in the world). The more easily you interact
with your teacher the easier it is to learn, yes?
So aside from the constant self arguing I did in the above paragraphs,
what other issues have I have neglected thinking about before hand?
PEACE IN, FOLK OUT
--
Support the Fun Institute --> http://fly.to/adp
"Super Karate Monkey" alias "Big Moody Bastard"
Paul Phoenix
Philip Nikolayev
'Likewise in respect of truth, I said, we shall regard as maimed in
precisely the same way the soul that hates the voluntary lie and is
troubled by it in its own self and greatly angered by it in others,
but cheerfully accepts the involuntary falsehood and is not distressed
when convicted of lack of knowledge, but wallows in the mud of
ignorance as insensitively as a pig.'
Cheers,
PN
geezerex
--
The Many Headed Hydra of Usenet, the Vigilante Doppleganger
Mr Happy Himself, come visit at:
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
geezerex
Fredrich P. Maney
: Ray Wagner wrote in message <3728B34F...@primary.net>...
[deletia]
:>Ray "wish I was a trendsetter like M" Wagner
: oh dont we all :)
Actually, no. That is neither here nor there though.
: andrew
fpsm
--
| Fredrich P. Maney ma...@seventhfloor.com |
| President, Seventh Floor Communications, Inc. www.seventhfloor.com |
| 167 West Main Street, Lexington, KY 40507 |
| ma...@stdio.com ma...@maney.org www.maney.org ICQ# 5632845 |
=======================================================================
'An it harm none, do what thou will.
Mehran Habibi
Philip Nikolayev wrote:
So, according to the quote copied and pasted, Platonism is 'accepting
involuntary falsehood' and 'hating voluntary falsehood'? Interesting, this
is a far cry from 'truth, the whole, and nothing but". Plato's quote
indicates an accept for certain kinds of untruth. Your statement does not:
how is, then, that you call yourself a platonist? I imagine that you're
not really clear of what it means to be one.
M
Mehran Habibi
"Fredrich P. Maney" wrote:
> coldblood <dool...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Ray Wagner wrote in message <3728B34F...@primary.net>...
>
> [deletia]
>
> :>Ray "wish I was a trendsetter like M" Wagner
>
> : oh dont we all :)
>
> Actually, no. That is neither here nor there though.
>
> : andrew
>
> fpsm
From out of out the back water, fpsm drops by to take a cheap shot, and
_misses_: LOL, it's just so sad bro.
M
coldblood
Mehran Habibi wrote in message <372C57A3...@cis.ohio-state.edu>...
some motherfuckers keep trying to ice skate up hill.
andrew
stephen_...@my-dejanews.com
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I totally agree. If I can't support something, I don't say it. If you
> notice for instance with my questions with Robert Smith's student, Stephen
> Goodson, he cannot come back with support for the claims he has made.
What claims have I made that I haven't given support for?
I claimed you were incorrect about Aikido's Unbendable Arm being PengJing
(tm) and proved you grossly wrong on it (http://ofInterest.ml.org/UA), so
much so that you backed away from that like a smelly prom date. Although that
article wasn't written specifically with you in mind, it showed how egregious
your theories of body mechanics are. Your response: "It can be done other
ways". It' can't.
I also claimed that you were dead wrong about the 1-inch punch being "short
power" of the PengJing verity. I give the mechanics of the punch and even
wagered you $1000.00 dollars to you to prove your case-- all you had to do was
move my feet from where they stood. Of course you claimed that I wouldn't show
up, or recognize the results, etc, etc., and got away from that like a rotten
egg.
I also backed another challenge to another of your outlandish claims of you
having seen someone push horizontal on someone's outstretched arm and they
kept it from moving using PengJing! When vice like critical thing was applied
to that story your insistence that it could be done evaporated.
I also presented my response to your Sigman Teacher Test
(http://ofInterest.ml.org/ttr). [Again showing your blaring ignorance of body
mechanics.] This brought about gobs of insults from you, numerous legal
threats from you, and a sissified challenge to an "unfriendly Martial
meeting"-- you are so funny! You weren't so funny when I showed up though as
you stated that you had "no problem with me". ====================
>He has to go silent. Angry, but silent.
=================
If silent, how can you say I'm angry? Psychic, or just hopeful?
I'm not angry with you Mr. Sigman, it's ok, everything is ok.
=================
> Is it worth it? Probably... when
> these sorts of charlatans are allowed to go unquestioned, the first person
> they start taking in are the naive beginners.
==================
Charlatans!
Like taking cash claiming to teach something that I don't really know.
Or expanding a product line by giving seminars to massage therapist, selling
them "internal strength".
==================
>
> >As far an 'acceptable level' of ineptness- If the ineptitude is due to the
> >instructor's lack of experience (i.e., he's only studied the art himself
> for a
> >few years or so), then that would be fine as long as he MAKES HIS STUDENTS
> >AWARE OF HIS LIMITATIONS. And he should probably teach for free, to boot.
==================
I agree!
==================
>
> Well, in an ideal world that's true. Unfortunately, you know as well as I
> do that these people don't admit that they're amateurs.
================== 1) You're using the "these people" identifier. Who are
these people? So far you've bashed everyone that isn't in affiliation with
you. 2) Since I've proven you incorrect on a number of occosians will you
admit that you are really an amateur? ==================
>
> Exactly. I've been there, too. Yet, you'd be surprised how many people
> will say "oh, don't break the guy's rice bowl... the students will figure it
> out sooner or later". Basically that's just a self-centered way of
> saying "no skin off my nose".
==================
We have spoke of all this before Mr. Sigman. Is this date discrepancy the only
thing you can come up with to uproot your perceived advisory?
Just to stir the kettle a bit I offer
The REAL Sigman Teacher Test:
1) Get your name
2) Get your teacher's name
3) Indirectly insult your teacher with statements that can be backed out of
easily, "he's a jerk, so I've been told", "child molester, they say", "never
studied, based on documents in China", etc.
4) And finally, pronounce you "written off" in his mind.
5) The accasional pot shot on RMA.
Truthfully I think, you, Mr. Sigman, are just caught up in the what Peter Lim
writes of as "… a current movement that uses the term Peng to denote Jing and
who regard Peng Jing as the core Jing in internal martial arts. This emphasis
on Peng Jing did not come into being until the 1963 work by Gu Liu Xin and
Shen Jia Ren on Chen style Taijiquan. This emphasis is absent from all works
on Taijiquan and internal martial arts prior to that and so it is a new
innovation and not a traditional one."
(http://web.singnet.com.sg/~limttk/neijing.htm) And you are doing everything
you can to try to crush what you see as the oppositions (anyone that doesn't
agree with you).
Funny, your big arguments aren't based on mechanics or applications or
anything Taichi. You bicker about spelling, anonymous posting to what has
obviously become in your mind your newsgroup, and some dates recorded over 50
years ago that are at most 3 years off.
But… I will take you up on your research assignment, I should have done so
before your premature ejaculation of victory made a mess on this newsgroup.
I'll do some research and let you know. [Now I'm doing your work for you. : (
] Since I'm just starting the project today I'd hope you'd give me more than
two days before claiming victory again.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Goodson : )
==================
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Sigman
RONIN®
<snip>
Just as an aside...I really enjoyed your comments in this
thread Mike and it has caused me to really re-evaluate my opinion of
you. Thanx.
RONIN® - The Unforgiven...
http://members.tripod.com/~kenpo_ronin/dragon.html
Philip Nikolayev
I think you misread the passage. It advocates no acceptance of any
kind of falsehood anywhere.
Best,
PN
Mike Sigman
stephen_...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7gi5n5$8gk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>What claims have I made that I haven't given support for?
>
You claimed your evaluation of the "teacher test" was based on having seen
it from two experts. Who are they? I posted it very clearly twice now.
Without having seen it, how is it you "debunk it"? And as I've stated a
number of times, your explanation that it's done with the leg is wrong.
How many times do I have to say it?
>I claimed you were incorrect about Aikido's Unbendable Arm being PengJing
>(tm) and proved you grossly wrong on it (http://ofInterest.ml.org/UA), so
>much so that you backed away from that like a smelly prom date.
Not really. You seem to have a weird way of arguing where someone tells you
an answer and then you pretend not to hear them. People get tired of that
silliness. Remember the last time about 10 different people told you you
were nuts for that kind of behavior? And we ALL "backed away".... but only
from insanity. And others in your own CMC group say you're nuts. Do you
think there's a pattern here? Are you in some sort of denial?
Now watch this..... I stop right here. I don't go along with the famous
Stephen J. Goodson multi-page posts where he conveniently begins to overlook
answers and pretends he hasn't heard them. Look at the first question...
who were the two experts? Are you basing your evaluation of the "teacher
test" on having seen some teachers do it?
Typically, you come up with a very long post to hide the fact that you
didn't answer anything.
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
>Charlatans!
>Like taking cash claiming to teach something that I don't really know.
>Or expanding a product line by giving seminars to massage therapist,
selling
>them "internal strength".
Excuse me. Can you support this with facts? I have never given a workshop
to a group of massage therapists. It's possible a few (also neijia
practitioners) have been to some of the workshops, but other than that....
no.
Could we have proof? Oh, and quote me that line you have about
"gentlemen"... I've forgotten it.
Mike Sigman
Y2Kjerks
>when I publicly challenge some claims or indicate that something is
>false.... I still notice that people get a lot more circumspect the next
>time. In fact, a lot of them get just as circumspect as they should have
>been in the first place.
Actually, I kind of agree with you now, after thinking more- If someone does
make a claim on a public forum (i.e., a newsgroup), then another should feel
free to refute that claim in an equally public manner... And as far as that
whole child molestation thing goes, I suppose it really doesn't matter whether
the info is made public or not- certainly the more people who are protected by
knowing the truth, the better...
>
>Well, in an ideal world that's true. Unfortunately, you know as well as I
>do that these people don't admit that they're amateurs.
>
Yeah, I'm still an idealist :). But that's true- and alot of times, they don't
know THEMSELVES that they're teaching falsehoods- I've met alot of instructors
who BELIEVE all the crap their 'sifu' told them- they never bothered to
research the opposing view...
It all boils down to the fact that this forum represents a free public exchange
of information about martial arts and practitioners. One has to be prepared for
negative or contradictory feedback as well as complimentary...
Randy
Gichoke
>I saw a post recently where someone recommended a teacher to someone else on
>the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
>for a child-molestation charge.
geezerex was railroaded
Peter C. Everett
: I saw a post recently where someone recommended a teacher to someone else on
: the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
: because it was not particularly germane to the question and besides, I fight
: enough battles without getting involved in that one. (BTW, this really
: happened)
: Was that the right thing to do?
: ...
I found myself in a very similar situation twice in the last few years.
The first time I said nothing, thinking it would be presumptuous to
judge for another person the quality of another school with known
problems. That decision preyed upon my mind for years. Then, last year
a woman asked me directly if that school was a reputable one. I explained
that while I had never set foot in the school and knew none of the
instructors I would have some concerns based on some of the accounts
from former students who had very negative cult experiences there,
the exposes reported in several newspapers and on television, and the
jail terms being served by their leadership. Yes, it was Chung Moo Doe.
She said that this information confirmed her ill-at-ease intuition
about the place, where she had written a large check against her
better judgement earlier that day. She thanked me and stopped payment
on the check.
Is it presumptuous to not let people find things out the hard way?
Sometimes. But I have found out that I feel much better sharing
both what I know and what I don't know, and letting people do with
it what they will.
Enjoy,
Peter C. Everett
Mike Sigman
Peter C. Everett wrote in message ...
>Is it presumptuous to not let people find things out the hard way?
>Sometimes. But I have found out that I feel much better sharing
>both what I know and what I don't know, and letting people do with
>it what they will.
You know, all you can do is try to treat people the way you'd want to be
treated. Personally, I want all the available data (good or bad) and then
I make my own decision. I'm well aware that people who present only
negative information are not telling the "whole truth" and I allow for that.
However, on the other hand, I'm just as aware that people who "only say
positive things" are just as equally hiding the truth. I don't make waste
time making judgements about "positive" or "negative" people... I just
collect data and make decisions.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Mehran Habibi
coldblood wrote:
> <snip>some motherfuckers keep trying to ice skate up hill.
>
> andrew
Great fucking movie: You get the CD?
M
Mehran Habibi
Philip Nikolayev wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I think you misread the passage. It advocates no acceptance of any
> kind of falsehood anywhere.
>
> Best,
> PN
So, then, truth is your ultimate ideal?
M
Quark
>
>In article <DZ9W2.82$8H....@news.rdc1.tx.home.com>,
> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> I totally agree. If I can't support something, I don't say it. If you
>> notice for instance with my questions with Robert Smith's student, Stephen
>> Goodson, he cannot come back with support for the claims he has made.
>====================
>What claims have I made that I haven't given support for?
>I claimed you were incorrect about Aikido's Unbendable Arm being PengJing
>(tm) and proved you grossly wrong on it (http://ofInterest.ml.org/UA), so
>much so that you backed away from that like a smelly prom date.
Making an assumption about something (i.e., your "claim") is not the same as
"supporting" it. In the case of the unbendable arm, using triceps
strength to keep the other guy from "bending" your arm is a silly reply, hardly
worth the time it took to offer it as an "explanation".
Why do you think it's viable?
> it showed how egregious
>your theories of body mechanics are. Your response: "It can be done other
>ways". It' can't.
It can't? How would you know, since your knowledge of taiji is evidently limited
to whatever self-taught physiology you can scrounge out of an (outdated) textbook?
The unbendable arm demo is about connecting the limb to the body frame, not at all about
tensing your triceps muscles as hard as you can to counter the other guy's attempt to
bend your arm. It's the same principle used to do *all* taiji movements well, including
qinna and qinna escapes.
You don't know it, but your explanation itself squarely locates you as someone without
much exposure to basic skills. Congratulations! You've turned a basic neijia skill into an
goofy explanation requiring local muscle tension in the arm. Did Robert Smith teach you this
kind of tai chee? If not, let us know who you got this from, so we can place the blame for poor
knowledge directly at their doorstep.
We're waiting...
>I also claimed that you were dead wrong about the 1-inch punch being "short
>power" of the PengJing verity. I give the mechanics of the punch and even
>wagered you $1000.00 dollars to you to prove your case-- all you had to do was
>move my feet from where they stood. Of course you claimed that I wouldn't show
>up, or recognize the results, etc, etc., and got away from that like a rotten
>egg.
Oh, I'm sure Mike would love to demo on you :-). Except your idea of "showing up"
evidently means making a brief appearance in the middle of a class, blowing a little
smoke from a distance and then taking off. Of course, that means you don't have to show
up when the class is over and there is a possibility of actually having to prove your own points.
And, you can tell people "I challenged Mike and he backed down!" Isn't really true, is
it?
>I also presented my response to your Sigman Teacher Test
>(http://ofInterest.ml.org/ttr). [Again showing your blaring ignorance of body
>mechanics.]
Whose "blaring ignorance" are we talking about now? For a guy who never heard of fa-jing,
which you yourself are on record as admitting, it sounds a little odd to everyone
for you to be the guy supposedly "exposing" it.
These things are integral to good taijiquan. For a clown like you to get
online and try to explain the skills involved as a cheap parlor trick not only demeans
the skills of traditional taijiquan, it also exposes you as someone without the slightest
knowledge of the art. Again, can we lay the blame for this on Robert Smith's doorstep?
You *are* one of his "senior" disciples, are you not?
>This brought about gobs of insults from you, numerous legal
>threats from you, and a sissified challenge to an "unfriendly Martial
>meeting"-- you are so funny! You weren't so funny when I showed up though as
>you stated that you had "no problem with me". ====================
Yeah, tell us about it.
Personally, I'd love to do a little pushhands with you. I'm not in Mike's
class in the internal skills dept., but I can take good care of myself :-).
Maybe we'll meet sometime.
Regardless of your personal vendetta with Mike (which the rest of us have no interest in),
you're making really, really stupid statements about taijiqaun in general, and it's time to show
us what you have. Can we count on a personal meeting sometime?
Let me know here. I'll make arrangements to do some pushhands with you. You can
show me your "four ounces" you learned from Cheng Manching; I'm really anxious to see it.
If we do make arrangements, you won't be pulling the stuff you did on Mike. I won't be in
the middle of a class, and we'll get down to an exchange of technique immediately.
Regards,
Q.
Philip Nikolayev
Mehran Habibi
Philip Nikolayev wrote:
Fair enough: brings up some interesting issues though. To start with, the
temporal nature of truth(excepting mathematics): Are you only interested
in what the truth is(I'm drinking hot water), what the truth was(I was
drinking a soda), or what the truth will be(I'll be drinking a beer)? I
guess what I'm asking is, how important is your 'truth' without it's
context? What makes it important? Also, what about perspective? My
truth(it's beautiful out) might be different then yours(say, it's
raining). What I'm trying to get to is that fact that truth doesn't mean
_anything_ outside of it's context.
M
Peter C. Everett
: Peter C. Everett wrote in message ...
Agreed. That's what it comes down to. How would I wish to be treated?
But then doesn't this answer your original question rather unambiguously?
Enjoy,
Peter C. Everett
Kevin
> Fair enough: brings up some interesting issues though. To start with, the
> temporal nature of truth(excepting mathematics): Are you only interested
> in what the truth is(I'm drinking hot water), what the truth was(I was
> drinking a soda), or what the truth will be(I'll be drinking a beer)? I
> guess what I'm asking is, how important is your 'truth' without it's
> context? What makes it important? Also, what about perspective? My
> truth(it's beautiful out) might be different then yours(say, it's
> raining). What I'm trying to get to is that fact that truth doesn't mean
> _anything_ outside of it's context.
I always liked Heinlein's 'fair witness' concept:
"The house is white on the side that I can see."
I rather doubt that a 'fair witness' could say that the
statement "It's beautiful out" is an acceptable statement
when dealing in 'truth'. For that matter, it would seem
to me that 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth' would of necessity include context, background,
intent, and fact.
In fact, the real problem is that the whole truth is a
bloody tiring thing; I'd hate to have to pay too much
attention to it for too long. Nah, me I'm lazy, and
I'd just prefer to surround myself with the sorts of
people who take innuendo and half truth, make the correct
assumptions to fill in the rest, and get it all right an
acceptable amount of the time.
:o)
Kevin
d...@wingchun.com
1) Goodson, based on his explanation of Aikido's unbendable arm as "tensing the hell of of the triceps" to resist as "body mechanics" shows he's clueless in the
body mechanics, structure arena.
2) We won't even discuss his "short power" theories, as Goodson appears to
be morphing into Tim Allen rather than Robert W. Smith.
3) You are more than willing to kick his ass, "Taiji style"(TM), if he shows
his face in your direction. And given its not even your art, thats even
more insulting.
There...
Thats better. Party on dudes. ;)
Quark <Nice...@Fire.Down.the.Budget> wrote:
: In article <7gi5n5$8gk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, stephen_...@my-dejanews.com says...
:>
:>In article <DZ9W2.82$8H....@news.rdc1.tx.home.com>,
:> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>>
:>> I totally agree. If I can't support something, I don't say it. If you
:>I claimed you were incorrect about Aikido's Unbendable Arm being PengJing
:>(tm) and proved you grossly wrong on it (http://ofInterest.ml.org/UA), so
:>much so that you backed away from that like a smelly prom date.
: Making an assumption about something (i.e., your "claim") is not the same as
: "supporting" it. In the case of the unbendable arm, using triceps
: strength to keep the other guy from "bending" your arm is a silly reply, hardly
: worth the time it took to offer it as an "explanation".
:>I also claimed that you were dead wrong about the 1-inch punch being "short
:>power" of the PengJing verity. I give the mechanics of the punch and even
:>wagered you $1000.00 dollars to you to prove your case-- all you had to do was
:>move my feet from where they stood. Of course you claimed that I wouldn't show
:>up, or recognize the results, etc, etc., and got away from that like a rotten
:>egg.
: Personally, I'd love to do a little pushhands with you. I'm not in Mike's
: class in the internal skills dept., but I can take good care of myself :-).
: Maybe we'll meet sometime.
: Let me know here. I'll make arrangements to do some pushhands with you. You can
stephen_...@my-dejanews.com
Nice...@Fire.Down.the.Budget (Quark) wrote:
> In article <7gi5n5$8gk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, stephen_...@my-dejanews.com says...
> >
> > "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I totally agree. If I can't support something, I don't say it. If you
> >> notice for instance with my questions with Robert Smith's student, Stephen
> >> Goodson, he cannot come back with support for the claims he has made.
> >====================
> >What claims have I made that I haven't given support for?
> >I claimed you were incorrect about Aikido's Unbendable Arm being PengJing
> >(tm) and proved you grossly wrong on it (http://ofInterest.ml.org/UA), so
> >much so that you backed away from that like a smelly prom date.
>
> "supporting" it. In the case of the unbendable arm, using triceps
> strength to keep the other guy from "bending" your arm is a silly reply, hardly
> worth the time it took to offer it as an "explanation".
Because, to extend the arm you must use the triceps.
This is basic body mechanics.
=============
>
> > it showed how egregious
> >your theories of body mechanics are. Your response: "It can be done other
> >ways". It' can't.
>
> to whatever self-taught physiology you can scrounge out of an (outdated) textbook?
============== No it can't. If you think you can do Unbendable Arm without
using the tricepts I'll allert the media. I'm sure James Randi would be happy
to pass the $1million he has available for your paranormal abitlity. (see
Randi.org/jr/chall.html) 1) the tricepts extend the arm. 2) it's not a Tai
Chi exercise. ==============
> The unbendable arm demo is about connecting the limb to the body frame,
============== Body frame? Why are you making stuff up to try defend your
understanding of Unbendable Arm? ==============
> not at all about
> tensing your triceps muscles as hard as you can to counter the other guy's attempt to
> bend your arm.
============== Please re-read my article (http://ofInterest.ml.org/UA). No
where in it do I speak about 'tensing the triceps as hard as you can'. In
fact I said: "When you are 'told the secret,' you are directed to open your
hand and relax and to extend your energy. This is the correct set-up for
the proper use of strength because it is in extending your arm that you
engage your triceps muscles. Your arm cannot be bent because you are able
to use the triceps muscles that extend your arm. This is the proper use of
strength for the task."
Nothing there about "tensing your triceps muscles as hard as you can".
==============
> It's the same principle used to do *all* taiji movements well, including
> qinna and qinna escapes.
============== Which principle? The proper use of strength principle, or the
extend your arm principle, or your connection to the body frame principle?
==============
> You don't know it, but your explanation itself squarely locates you as someone without
> much exposure to basic skills.
==============
... basic skills as taught by whom?
==============
> Congratulations! You've turned a basic neijia skill into an
> goofy explanation requiring local muscle tension in the arm.
==============
Sorry, does the truth hurt?
==============
> Did Robert Smith teach you this kind of tai chee?
============== Funny how you are confusing the arts of Tai Chi with Aikido.
Unbendable Arm is an Aikido exercise not a Tai Chi exercise. Are you new to
the Martial Arts? You might want to do some reading on the subject, it helps.
"Don't let an expert laugh at you." ==============
> If not, let us know who you got this from, so we can place the blame for poor
> knowledge directly at their doorstep. We're waiting...
==============
Please Re-read the story. It's from my own experience.
==============
>
> >I also claimed that you were dead wrong about the 1-inch punch being "short
> >power" of the PengJing verity. I give the mechanics of the punch and even
> >wagered you $1000.00 dollars to you to prove your case-- all you had to do was
> >move my feet from where they stood. Of course you claimed that I wouldn't show
> >up, or recognize the results, etc, etc., and got away from that like a rotten
> >egg.
>
> Oh, I'm sure Mike would love to demo on you :-). Except your idea of "showing up"
> evidently means making a brief appearance in the middle of a class, blowing a little
> smoke from a distance and then taking off. Of course, that means you don't have to show
> up when the class is over and there is a possibility of actually having to prove your own points.
> And, you can tell people "I challenged Mike and he backed down!" Isn't really true, is
> it?
================= Actually Mr. Sigman did the challenging, remember? We were
to have an "unfriendly Martial Meeting" according to him. I just showed up as
I promissed, durring his class as promissed, alone as promissed. No smoke
blowing from a distance and then leaving. I simply showed up and called him
out. =================
>
> >I also presented my response to your Sigman Teacher Test
> >(http://ofInterest.ml.org/ttr). [Again showing your blaring ignorance of body
> >mechanics.]
>
> Whose "blaring ignorance" are we talking about now?
================= Mr. Sigman's. But so far your understaning of body
mechanics is no better. Is he your teacher? =================
> For a guy who never heard of fa-jing, which you yourself are on record as admitting,
=================
What? Where do you get this?
=================
> it sounds a little odd to everyone
=================
Interesting, so you speak for 'everyone'.
=================
> for you to be the guy supposedly "exposing" it.
> These things are integral to good taijiquan.
================= You are waging a style war here and don't even know it -
Chen Tai Chi from the sound of it. You confuse Aikido and Tai Chi. You are so
off on body mechanics that you're not even wrong! =================
>
> >This brought about gobs of insults from you, numerous legal
> >threats from you, and a sissified challenge to an "unfriendly Martial
> >meeting"-- you are so funny! You weren't so funny when I showed up though as
> >you stated that you had "no problem with me". ====================
>
> Yeah, tell us about it.
=================
I, just, did. Re-read paragraph above.
=================
> Personally, I'd love to do a little pushhands with you. I'm not in Mike's
> class in the internal skills dept., but I can take good care of myself :-).
> Maybe we'll meet sometime.
> Regardless of your personal vendetta with Mike (which the rest of us have no interest in),
> you're making really, really stupid statements about taijiqaun in general, and it's time to show
> us what you have. Can we count on a personal meeting sometime?
> Let me know here. I'll make arrangements to do some pushhands with you. You can
> show me your "four ounces" you learned from Cheng Manching; I'm really anxious to see it.
> If we do make arrangements, you won't be pulling the stuff you did on Mike. I won't be in
> the middle of a class, and we'll get down to an exchange of technique immediately.
==============
Excellent! That's:
Stephen Goodson
11835 Parliament Drive
Lake Ridge, Va 22192
I look forward to pushing with you. I've pushed with a few folks that follow
Mr. Sigman. I've always had fun. Not sure where you're from but I'm in the DC
area. I'm willing to drive up to 3 hours to see ya'. Are you that close?
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Goodson
==============
>
> Regards,
> Q.
coldblood
andrew
Mehran Habibi wrote in message <372DA558...@cis.ohio-state.edu>...
Mehran Habibi
Kevin wrote:
<snip>
Good post, and well stated.
M
Archangelo
be dangerous or fake, you should let people know. Post fact and give sources
people can look up. Some may say it is not your responsibility, but that is
like saying "I am not going to report that guy who keeps having people over
that scream at night and are never seen again." The important thing is that
you make sure your info is accurate and that you examine the situation
closely.
For example, the supposed almighty school of Chung Moo Doe is listed by many
as a destructive cult (www.rickross.com , for example). They have lots of
scams and brainwashing techniques, and almost everything they claim/teach is
false or highly inadequate in comparison to other arts. Would you rather
have someone get sucked into this baloney of a martial art when all they
needed to possibly avoid being brainwashed and used was a little info?
Archangelo
Mehran Habibi
Archangelo wrote:
> <snip>For example, the supposed almighty school of Chung Moo Doe is listed by
> many
> as a destructive cult (www.rickross.com , for example). They have lots of
> scams and brainwashing techniques, and almost everything they claim/teach is
> false or highly inadequate in comparison to other arts. Would you rather
> have someone get sucked into this baloney of a martial art when all they
> needed to possibly avoid being brainwashed and used was a little info?
>
> Archangelo
People who _would_ have fallen for it(but for your warning) will go on and and
find another hell for themselves shortly. You can't save people: all you can do
is what you can.
M
mikel evins
On Wed, 5 May 1999 6:54:17 -0700, Mehran Habibi wrote
(in message <37304D89...@cis.ohio-state.edu>):
Speaking as someone who is embarassed to have been taken in by a faker in the
martial arts, and grateful to have been exposed to better information by
someone willing to take the flak that goes with exposing fakery, I find your
attitude both patronizing and discouraging.
--
===============
mikel evins
mi...@apple.com
Mehran Habibi
mikel evins wrote:
> <snip>
> > People who _would_ have fallen for it(but for your warning) will go on and
> > and find another hell for themselves shortly. You can't save people: all you
> > can do is what you can.
>
> Speaking as someone who is embarassed to have been taken in by a faker in the
> martial arts, and grateful to have been exposed to better information by
> someone willing to take the flak that goes with exposing fakery, I find your
> attitude both patronizing and discouraging.
>
> --
> ===============
> mikel evins
> mi...@apple.com
It was intended to be neither: I've 'fallen' for many things: women, jobs,
friends, bad(and expensive) habits, etc. I grew because of it. Falling is part of
life: so is getting up again.
Mehran
mikel evins
On Wed, 5 May 1999 10:10:15 -0700, Mehran Habibi wrote
(in message <37307B77...@cis.ohio-state.edu>):
That's pretty much what the fakers in question said to justify the lies they
told to students whose money they took. No doubt they would be gratified by
your support.
Mehran Habibi
mikel evins wrote:
> <snip>
> > It was intended to be neither: I've 'fallen' for many things: women, jobs,
> > friends, bad(and expensive) habits, etc. I grew because of it. Falling is
> > part of life: so is getting up again.
>
> That's pretty much what the fakers in question said to justify the lies they
> told to students whose money they took. No doubt they would be gratified by
> your support.
>
What? The Fakers in question said "I'm sorry I lied to you, but, hopefully,
you've grown a bit from the experience of having been conned?". They must be
pretty unusual fakers. My post, despite your efforts to force subtext into it,
was basically a positive one: That was made perfectly clear after the _second_
post where I spelled it out. Sounds like you're about to make your own mistake
here, on purpose, by deliberately misinterpreting my message. Whatever: it is,
after all, your mistake to make. maybe you need it as a 'growth experience'.
M
mikel evins
On Wed, 5 May 1999 10:59:05 -0700, Mehran Habibi wrote
(in message <373086E9...@cis.ohio-state.edu>):
>
> mikel evins wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>> It was intended to be neither: I've 'fallen' for many things: women,
>>> jobs, friends, bad(and expensive) habits, etc. I grew because of it.
>>> Falling is part of life: so is getting up again.
>>
>> That's pretty much what the fakers in question said to justify the lies
>> they told to students whose money they took. No doubt they would be
>> gratified by your support.
>>
>
> What? The Fakers in question said "I'm sorry I lied to you, but, hopefully,
> you've grown a bit from the experience of having been conned?". They must
> be pretty unusual fakers.
The actual quote was more like "Well, nobody can prove anything about the
martial arts anyway, so what does it matter? Anyway it's a good learning
experience."
> My post, despite your efforts to force subtext
> into it, was basically a positive one: That was made perfectly clear after
> the _second_ post where I spelled it out. Sounds like you're about to make
> your own mistake here, on purpose, by deliberately misinterpreting my
> message. Whatever: it is, after all, your mistake to make. maybe you need
> it as a 'growth experience'.
Your post said:
> People who _would_ have fallen for [Chung Moo Doe -- a cult-like scam]
> (but for your warning) will go on and
> and find another hell for themselves shortly. You can't save people: all you
> can do is what you can.
I fell for a cult-like scam because I didn't know enough not to. Your
prediction is that, once someone better-informed warned me off by exposing me
to questions and better information, I would "find another hell for [myself]
shortly," which presumably means that whatever I've done since leaving the
bogus teachers in question is "another hell." Since "another hell" is a
comparison with a cult-like scam, it's reasonable to assume that you expect me
to have moved on to another cult-like scam -- in other words, to expect that my
friend's effort in informing me was wasted.
What part of this reasoning is faulty?
Your latest post asserts that I must be intentionally misinterpreting you,
perhaps because I need a 'growth experience'. [Nothing patronizing or
discouraging there!] That being the case, I await your enlightened instruction.
Perhaps you can deduce from first principles what cult-like scam I am presently
involved in (not that, according to you, it would do me any good to tell me
about it).
Mehran Habibi
mikel evins wrote:
> <snip>
> > What? The Fakers in question said "I'm sorry I lied to you, but, hopefully,
> > you've grown a bit from the experience of having been conned?". They must
> > be pretty unusual fakers.
>
> The actual quote was more like "Well, nobody can prove anything about the
> martial arts anyway, so what does it matter? Anyway it's a good learning
> experience."
>
1) I'm amazed that you remember the actual quote. How long ago was this?
2) What they said != to what I said. Their statement seems to say the (unprovable)
material they taught you _is_ valuable, despite the fact that they can't prove it
to contain such value. My statement would have them saying that lying, betraying
your trust, and hurting you was valuable.
>
> > My post, despite your efforts to force subtext
> > into it, was basically a positive one: That was made perfectly clear after
> > the _second_ post where I spelled it out. Sounds like you're about to make
> > your own mistake here, on purpose, by deliberately misinterpreting my
> > message. Whatever: it is, after all, your mistake to make. maybe you need
> > it as a 'growth experience'.
>
> Your post said:
>
> > People who _would_ have fallen for [Chung Moo Doe -- a cult-like scam]
> > (but for your warning) will go on and
> > and find another hell for themselves shortly. You can't save people: all you
> > can do is what you can.
>
> I fell for a cult-like scam because I didn't know enough not to. Your
> prediction is that, once someone better-informed warned me off by exposing me
> to questions and better information, I would "find another hell for [myself]
> shortly," which presumably means that whatever I've done since leaving the
> bogus teachers in question is "another hell."
No, doesn't. You're using sloppy logic.
> Since "another hell" is a
> comparison with a cult-like scam, it's reasonable to assume that you expect me
> to have moved on to another cult-like scam -- in other words, to expect that my
> friend's effort in informing me was wasted.
>
> What part of this reasoning is faulty?
>
Where do I start?
For one thing, my prediction was that saving you from a particular cult wouldn't
have removed the drive that made cults attractive to you in the first place. Thus,
even if you hadn't joined this cult, that 'thing' inside you would have tried to
find nourishment with another cult like setting. Thus, my assessment that you can't
"save' people. Dealing with that 'thing' is an issue that you need to resolve for
yourself, just as everyone else does. The positive part of my post was that you
would survive the experience of making mistakes: that you would, in fact, be
stronger for it. What doesn't kill you and all that.
>
> Your latest post asserts that I must be intentionally misinterpreting you,
> perhaps because I need a 'growth experience'.
You _are_ deliberately misinterpreting me: doing so 'intentional' is a finer cut. I
don't know if you're in a bad mood or if you've just decide to pick a fight or
what: but I _do_ know that I wasn't sending out either a patronizing or
discouraging message.
> [Nothing patronizing or
> discouraging there!]
Now we're in a different world: If you're gonna fight, expect to get popped.
> That being the case, I await your enlightened instruction.
>
This might be part of your problem: maybe you should try to sort these things on
your own, instead of looking for others to provide answers for you.
> Perhaps you can deduce from first principles what cult-like scam I am presently
> involved in (not that, according to you, it would do me any good to tell me
> about it).
>
Mark's told me a little bit about both his own and your MA backgrounds, so it
wouldn't really be a guess(nor, as I understand, is it a cult).
Mehran
mikel evins
On Wed, 5 May 1999 12:12:04 -0700, Mehran Habibi wrote
(in message <37309804...@cis.ohio-state.edu>):
>
> All right, if you're determined to do this, let's get it on.
Let me check to see if I've got your claim correctly: if someone falls for a
scam like Chung Moo Doe, that's evidence of a character flaw or weakness on
their part that will not be addressed by warning them off; is that right? In
addition, you seem to be saying that allowing people to be taken in (rather
than warning them off) is actually good for them.
Just to make my counterclaims clear, I claim that everyone is vulnerable to
some deception or other; therefore, blaming the victim is wrong, and warning
someone off from a scam is a valuable service. I also claim to know from
experience that, in contradiction to your stated opinion, warning people off
from a scam can help make them better-informed and less likely to be taken in
again.
That seems to me to make the contrasting position clear enough, and makes the
rest of the sophistry superfluous. Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.
Mehran Habibi
mikel evins wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 1999 12:12:04 -0700, Mehran Habibi wrote
> (in message <37309804...@cis.ohio-state.edu>):
> >
> > All right, if you're determined to do this, let's get it on.
>
> Let me check to see if I've got your claim correctly: if someone falls for a
> scam like Chung Moo Doe, that's evidence of a character flaw or weakness on
> their part that will not be addressed by warning them off; is that right? In
> addition, you seem to be saying that allowing people to be taken in (rather
> than warning them off) is actually good for them.
>
This is the danger in rephrasing another person's words: You can, sometimes, not
be incorrect, but still fail to be right. I can't really say what I said in words
other then the ones I chose. To address your point: Yes, I believe that if
someone 'needs' to believe, etc., then simply telling them not to will not be
convincing. They will take that same devotion and place @ another, equally in
appropriate place. I say 'inappropriate', not because the focus of the devotion
is incorrect, but because the motivation for going to that focus is. And yes, I
believe that, by and large, such mistakes can act as a vaccination, tempering
fire, etc. This last part is the good news: Life goes on, and people survive shit
you'd never have imagined. The words 'weakness' etc., don't really have a place
in my paradigm. Strength comes from meeting(and surviving) trouble. Without such
trouble, one(IMO) cannot posses strength.
>
> Just to make my counterclaims clear, I claim that everyone is vulnerable to
> some deception or other; therefore, blaming the victim is wrong, and warning
> someone off from a scam is a valuable service.
This is the first time that I've heard this: before, all you said was that you
found my contention to be 'both patronizing and discouraging'(!?): You never
really offered this up. But that's not a big deal. The above is _not_ a counter
to my claim: Which is to say, my statement does _not_ say that only certain
people make mistakes, nor does it assert that the victim should somehow be
'blamed'. Further, I counter your counter(getting a headache now) that warning
someone from a given scam is a valuable service. It is, in fact, like giving a
man a fish, not teaching him how to fish. I don't think anyone(besides yourself)
can teach you to deal with your inner issues. The same is true, of course, for
me.
> I also claim to know from
> experience that, in contradiction to your stated opinion, warning people off
> from a scam can help make them better-informed and less likely to be taken in
> again.
Fine. My experience has been that, once a fool, I'm second time wary.
M
mikel evins
On Wed, 5 May 1999 13:20:12 -0700, Mehran Habibi wrote
(in message <3730A7FC...@cis.ohio-state.edu>):
>
> mikel evins wrote:
>>
>> Just to make my counterclaims clear, I claim that everyone is vulnerable
>> to some deception or other; therefore, blaming the victim is wrong, and
>> warning someone off from a scam is a valuable service.
>
> This is the first time that I've heard this: before, all you said was that
> you found my contention to be 'both patronizing and discouraging'(!?):
[...]
>Further, I counter your counter(getting a headache now)
> that warning someone from a given scam is a valuable service. It is, in
> fact, like giving a man a fish, not teaching him how to fish. I don't think
> anyone(besides yourself) can teach you to deal with your inner issues.
The presumption that being taken in by a scam is evidence of someone's 'inner
issues' is patronizing. The supposition that fair warning does no good is
discouraging.
Russell L. Rader
>
> For one thing, my prediction was that saving you from a particular cult wouldn't
> have removed the drive that made cults attractive to you in the first place. Thus,
> even if you hadn't joined this cult, that 'thing' inside you would have tried to
> find nourishment with another cult like setting. Thus, my assessment that you can't
> "save' people. Dealing with that 'thing' is an issue that you need to resolve for
> yourself, just as everyone else does. The positive part of my post was that you
> would survive the experience of making mistakes: that you would, in fact, be
> stronger for it.
You are assuming that Mikel had the cult drive or "thing" in the first
place. Maybe that is not the case. Maybe he was just a beginner and
didn't know enough about the art to know it was BS. I assume that the
art was taiji, which is an esoteric art with a lot of BS regarding it.
So Mikel got ripped off. How this experience helped Mikel to grow, I'm
not sure. I think that a real teacher would have helped him grow more.
You can't save people who are looking for a cult, sure. But sometimes
people who weren't looking for one get caught by accident, too.
Let's say you buy a car and later discover that it is a lemon. A friend
of yours knows that the dealer is a shyster, but he didn't tell you.
How does that help you in any way? If your (ex) friend would have
simply told you not to trust the car dealer, he would have saved you a
lot of trouble and expense. I think that is what Mikel is talking
about, not trying to change the personality of a person who "needs" a
cult.
> What doesn't kill you
... weakens you? Hurts? Not the answer you were looking for, huh?
;-) I'm personally not a big believer in that catch-phrase. Sure,
progress requires work, sweat, inconvenience, even some pain. But not
all pain is therefore good. If someone chops my leg off, if might not
kill me. If I live, though, it sure as hell won't make me stronger.
Russ
mikel evins
On Wed, 5 May 1999 13:03:17 -0700, Russell L. Rader wrote
(in message <3730A405...@ford.com>):
> Mehran Habibi wrote:
>>
>> For one thing, my prediction was that saving you from a particular cult
>> wouldn't have removed the drive that made cults attractive to you in the
>> first place. Thus, even if you hadn't joined this cult, that 'thing'
>> inside you would have tried to find nourishment with another cult like
>> setting. Thus, my assessment that you can't "save' people. Dealing with
>> that 'thing' is an issue that you need to resolve for yourself, just as
>> everyone else does. The positive part of my post was that you would
>> survive the experience of making mistakes: that you would, in fact, be
>> stronger for it.
>
> You are assuming that Mikel had the cult drive or "thing" in the first
> place. Maybe that is not the case. Maybe he was just a beginner and didn't
> know enough about the art to know it was BS. I assume that the art was
> taiji, which is an esoteric art with a lot of BS regarding it. So Mikel got
> ripped off. How this experience helped Mikel to grow, I'm not sure. I
> think that a real teacher would have helped him grow more. You can't save
> people who are looking for a cult, sure. But sometimes people who weren't
> looking for one get caught by accident, too.
Precisely.
Philip Nikolayev
> Philip Nikolayev wrote:
>
> > Mehran Habibi <hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> >
> > > Philip Nikolayev wrote:
> > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > I think you misread the passage. It advocates no acceptance of any
> > > > kind of falsehood anywhere.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > PN
> > >
> > > So, then, truth is your ultimate ideal?
> >
> > Yeah, you could say that.
> >
> > PN
>
> Fair enough: brings up some interesting issues though. To start with, the
> temporal nature of truth(excepting mathematics): Are you only interested
> in what the truth is(I'm drinking hot water), what the truth was(I was
> drinking a soda), or what the truth will be(I'll be drinking a beer)? I
> guess what I'm asking is, how important is your 'truth' without it's
> context? What makes it important? Also, what about perspective? My
> truth(it's beautiful out) might be different then yours(say, it's
> raining). What I'm trying to get to is that fact that truth doesn't mean
> _anything_ outside of it's context.
First off, I'm not convinced that mathematics is the only exception to
the "temporal nature" of truth (even if you subsume logic under
mathematics). Are the laws of physics temporal? I'd venture that moral
truths, for example, are just as stable as these (granted, not a very
popular position in our relativistic, postmodern age). Correct
contexts and perspectives are, of course, fine and important, being as
they are a part of the truth. Conversely, without a truth a context or
perspective are meaningless: a context of, a perspective on, nothing.
Best,
PN
stephen_...@my-dejanews.com
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> stephen_...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7gi5n5$8gk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >Charlatans!
> >Like taking cash claiming to teach something that I don't really know.
> >Or expanding a product line by giving seminars to massage therapist,
> selling
> >them "internal strength".
>
> Excuse me. Can you support this with facts? I have never given a workshop
> to a group of massage therapists. It's possible a few (also neijia
> practitioners) have been to some of the workshops, but other than that....
> no.
>
> Could we have proof? Oh, and quote me that line you have about
> "gentlemen"... I've forgotten it.
>
> Mike Sigman
>
====================
I responded to this message, and a few others, the other day. I saw them on my
news reader but as yet not on 'Deja'. Is there typically such lag time from
non-'Deja' users?
====================
TravIsGod
>> drinking a soda), or what the truth will be(I'll be drinking a beer)? I
>> guess what I'm asking is, how important is your 'truth' without it's
>> context? What makes it important? Also, what about perspective? My
>> truth(it's beautiful out) might be different then yours(say, it's
>> raining). What I'm trying to get to is that fact that truth doesn't mean
>> _anything_ outside of it's context.
Mehran, this is a reductionist argument to try to make "truth" a subjective
term. "It is beautiful out" is NOT truth, nor is it falsehood. It is totally
subjective, and I cringe at the thought that saying that it is "your" truth
will somehow by proxy lead to an assertion that because this example is wholly
subjective that ALL truth is subjective, i.e., there is NO absolute truth
outside mathematics. If there is no truth, there is no right & wrong...you
know "wrong according to you but not wrong according to me." While an
educated, tolerant people could survive with such a system, I think that our
pretty petty human race uses it for no more than a bludgeon. I don't have to
agree with you if my definition of "agree" differs.
Trav
Mehran Habibi
mikel evins wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 1999 13:20:12 -0700, Mehran Habibi wrote
> (in message <3730A7FC...@cis.ohio-state.edu>):
> >
> > mikel evins wrote:
> >>
> >> Just to make my counterclaims clear, I claim that everyone is vulnerable
> >> to some deception or other; therefore, blaming the victim is wrong, and
> >> warning someone off from a scam is a valuable service.
> >
> > This is the first time that I've heard this: before, all you said was that
> > you found my contention to be 'both patronizing and discouraging'(!?):
>
> [...]
>
> >Further, I counter your counter(getting a headache now)
> > that warning someone from a given scam is a valuable service. It is, in
> > fact, like giving a man a fish, not teaching him how to fish. I don't think
> > anyone(besides yourself) can teach you to deal with your inner issues.
>
> The presumption that being taken in by a scam is evidence of someone's 'inner
> issues' is patronizing.
I don't find it patronizing, since patronizing, to me, indicates that I'm somehow
above it: I was pretty clear that I'm not.
> The supposition that fair warning does no good is
> discouraging.
I find the supposition that you will survive your mistakes to be fairly
encouraging. Still, I didn't say it to be encouraging _or_ discouraging. I said
it because I believe it to be true.
Mehran
Mike Sigman
>
>I claimed you were incorrect about Aikido's Unbendable Arm being PengJing
>(tm) and proved you grossly wrong on it (http://ofInterest.ml.org/UA), so
>much so that you backed away from that like a smelly prom date. Although
that
>article wasn't written specifically with you in mind, it showed how
egregious
>your theories of body mechanics are. Your response: "It can be done other
>ways". It' can't.
I might as well have a little fun with this since the answer will be obvious
in the next tape that I do.
OK, Goodson. First off, I didn't resond too much to your comments because
I don't want to tell you the answer, just like I'm not going to be bullied
into telling you how the "teacher test" really works. In other words, I
want you on record for what you're saying. So even though you didn't
pick up on it (tell me though... weren't you even a little suspicious that
you were letting yourself be set up?), I'm telling you ahead of time that
you're not going to look good on this one.
I even gave you your out.... "it can be done other ways"... but you're
insisting that there is only one way to do the unbendable arm? Would you
say for instance that there is only one way to punch someone with a fist?
That all punches use the deltoid muscle and that's the secret?
Let's see if you can make short, succinct, to-the-point replies, BTW. None
of your rambling 3 pagers that never seem to answer a question and which
seem to ignore any answers that you don't want to hear.
Mike Sigman
Mehran Habibi
"Russell L. Rader" wrote:
> <snip>
> You are assuming that Mikel had the cult drive or "thing" in the first
> place. Maybe that is not the case. Maybe he was just a beginner and
> didn't know enough about the art to know it was BS. I assume that the
> art was taiji, which is an esoteric art with a lot of BS regarding it.
> So Mikel got ripped off. How this experience helped Mikel to grow, I'm
> not sure.
Mikel seems to be fairly well grounded in logic(even if he's quick to take offense where
non was intended): that, I think, might be an indication that he found something.
> I think that a real teacher would have helped him grow more.
>
You're saying that MA teachers(even good ones), help people reach Inner Peace(tm)?
> You can't save people who are looking for a cult, sure. But sometimes
> people who weren't looking for one get caught by accident, too.
>
> Let's say you buy a car and later discover that it is a lemon. A friend
> of yours knows that the dealer is a shyster, but he didn't tell you.
> How does that help you in any way? If your (ex) friend would have
> simply told you not to trust the car dealer, he would have saved you a
> lot of trouble and expense. I think that is what Mikel is talking
> about, not trying to change the personality of a person who "needs" a
> cult.
I was thinking more of a scenario where you might tell a friend that a girl is bad news:
he doesn't want to hear it, and he's not going to. He needs convincing. Besides, you
could be wrong about the girl: hence, my original position(to Sigman) that you're better
off(in general) keeping your thoughts to yourself.
>
>
> > What doesn't kill you
>
> ... weakens you? Hurts? Not the answer you were looking for, huh?
> ;-)
Smartass: I didn't say "everything that doesn't kill you': Of course, there is a
threshold for this sorta thing. But OTOH, not all pain is bad.
> I'm personally not a big believer in that catch-phrase. Sure,
> progress requires work, sweat, inconvenience, even some pain. But not
> all pain is therefore good.
I never said it was: you should see my shins from last night. ;-*
M
Mehran Habibi
Philip Nikolayev wrote:<snip>
> > Fair enough: brings up some interesting issues though. To start with, the
> > temporal nature of truth(excepting mathematics): Are you only interested
> > in what the truth is(I'm drinking hot water), what the truth was(I was
> > drinking a soda), or what the truth will be(I'll be drinking a beer)? I
> > guess what I'm asking is, how important is your 'truth' without it's
> > context? What makes it important? Also, what about perspective? My
> > truth(it's beautiful out) might be different then yours(say, it's
> > raining). What I'm trying to get to is that fact that truth doesn't mean
> > _anything_ outside of it's context.
>
> First off, I'm not convinced that mathematics is the only exception to
> the "temporal nature" of truth (even if you subsume logic under
> mathematics).
Well, you're not alone, though you are in a minority.
> Are the laws of physics temporal?
Absolutely: by defination.
> I'd venture that moral
> truths, for example, are just as stable as these (granted, not a very
> popular position in our relativistic, postmodern age).
What moral truths did you have in mind?
> Correct
> contexts and perspectives are, of course, fine and important, being as
> they are a part of the truth.
They are _not_ a 'part' of the truth: they are separate entities all together.
> Conversely, without a truth a context or
> perspective are meaningless: a context of, a perspective on, nothing.
>
Interesting point: I'll have to think on it a bit.
M
Dave Murray
>Mehran, this is a reductionist argument to try to make "truth" a subjective
>term. "It is beautiful out" is NOT truth, nor is it falsehood. It is
totally
>subjective, and I cringe at the thought that saying that it is "your" truth
>will somehow by proxy lead to an assertion that because this example is
wholly
>subjective that ALL truth is subjective, i.e., there is NO absolute truth
>outside mathematics. If there is no truth, there is no right & wrong...you
>know "wrong according to you but not wrong according to me." While an
>educated, tolerant people could survive with such a system, I think that
our
>pretty petty human race uses it for no more than a bludgeon. I don't have
to
>agree with you if my definition of "agree" differs.
Ever since the evil philosopher, Nietzsche, coined the bankrupt word,
"values" as a replacement for the word morals, we've been on a downhill path
to hell. If there are no absolutes, we are in chaos, playing a game of
poker where the rules change after you bet. It is popular because it allows
us to feel good about doing the things that we "value", even though it is
not good for ourselves or society. That's the beauty of martial arts,
defeat is the result of doing it "wrong", reminds us that there are
absolutes.
Regards and respect,
Dave Murray
Mehran Habibi
TravIsGod wrote:
> <snip>Mehran, this is a reductionist argument to try to make "truth" a
> subjective
> term. "It is beautiful out" is NOT truth, nor is it falsehood. It is totally
> subjective, and I cringe at the thought that saying that it is "your" truth
> will somehow by proxy lead to an assertion that because this example is wholly
> subjective that ALL truth is subjective, i.e., there is NO absolute truth
> outside mathematics. If there is no truth, there is no right & wrong...you
> know "wrong according to you but not wrong according to me." While an
> educated, tolerant people could survive with such a system, I think that our
> pretty petty human race uses it for no more than a bludgeon. I don't have to
> agree with you if my definition of "agree" differs.
>
> Trav
Trav, You make a good point that some (functionally)moral absolutes are necessary
for us to live together. OTOH, I get terrified when people start talking about the
'Truth': Now _that's_ something to bludgeon people with. I'm just trying to
encouraging a certain amount of balance.
M
Russell L. Rader
>
> "Russell L. Rader" wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > You are assuming that Mikel had the cult drive or "thing" in the first
> > place. Maybe that is not the case. Maybe he was just a beginner and
> > didn't know enough about the art to know it was BS. I assume that the
> > art was taiji, which is an esoteric art with a lot of BS regarding it.
> > So Mikel got ripped off. How this experience helped Mikel to grow, I'm
> > not sure.
>
> Mikel seems to be fairly well grounded in logic(even if he's quick to take offense where
> non was intended): that, I think, might be an indication that he found something.
It takes time for even a logical beginner to figure out that someone is
a shyster.
> > I think that a real teacher would have helped him grow more.
>
> You're saying that MA teachers(even good ones), help people reach Inner Peace(tm)?
No, unless having the confidence that comes from knowing you really
could pound the crap out of someone if necessary is Inner Peace(TM).
I'm saying that his growth as a martial artist would be better under a
real teacher. And you *KNOW* that my definition of MA does not require
inner peace, crystals and light.
> > Let's say you buy a car and later discover that it is a lemon. A friend
> > of yours knows that the dealer is a shyster, but he didn't tell you.
> > How does that help you in any way? If your (ex) friend would have
> > simply told you not to trust the car dealer, he would have saved you a
> > lot of trouble and expense. I think that is what Mikel is talking
> > about, not trying to change the personality of a person who "needs" a
> > cult.
>
> I was thinking more of a scenario where you might tell a friend that a girl is bad news:
> he doesn't want to hear it, and he's not going to. He needs convincing. Besides, you
> could be wrong about the girl: hence, my original position(to Sigman) that you're better
> off(in general) keeping your thoughts to yourself.
If that is the case, then you can't help him, true. But what if he does
listen to you? You won't know if he'll listen or not, until you tell
him. Of course if the guy has a track record of that kind of thing,
then you have a clue not to waste your time.
You could be wrong about the girl? Maybe, and in that case maybe it is
best to keep quiet. If you are fairly sure, though, then I don't see
anything wrong with giving someone a heads-up. If they ignore you,
that's their problem; you done your good deed for the day.
> > > What doesn't kill you
> >
> > ... weakens you? Hurts? Not the answer you were looking for, huh?
> > ;-)
>
> Smartass: I didn't say "everything that doesn't kill you': Of course, there is a
> threshold for this sorta thing. But OTOH, not all pain is bad.
OK, fair enough. I have just met some overly macho types who don't know
when to quit. They used that phrase a lot.
> > I'm personally not a big believer in that catch-phrase. Sure,
> > progress requires work, sweat, inconvenience, even some pain. But not
> > all pain is therefore good.
>
> I never said it was: you should see my shins from last night. ;-*
I sometimes wonder how many MAists are closet masochists. ;-)
Russ
Ron Beaubien
I believe that we should stand up for our rights and say something if we know
that someone in the martial arts community is a fraud. Others will only get
hurt if we don't let them know the truth. If an instructor lies about his or
her teaching credentials and then teaches others and attracts them to the
school using those claims then they can be held accountable for it in a court
of law (at least in the US).
If this has happened to someone you know or if you are interested in finding
out more about what you can do then visit:
The Martial Arts Consumer Protection Site
http://www2.crosswinds.net/japan/~consumer/
Regards,
Ron Beaubien
In article <K2_V2.5$8H...@news.rdc1.tx.home.com>,
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I saw a post recently where someone recommended a teacher to someone else on
> the internet. I know the teacher and I know that he spent a year in jail
> for a child-molestation charge. I didn't share what I knew, mainly
> because it was not particularly germane to the question and besides, I fight
> enough battles without getting involved in that one. (BTW, this really
> happened)
>
> Was that the right thing to do?
>
> For people that think divulging that sort of truth is the correct thing to
> do.... where do you draw the line? What if someone claims that there
> teacher studied with a famous master for many years when in fact that's not
> the truth and you know it. Should you sit mum and not say a word? Is it
> just too bad if that crowd attracts students and the money is paid for
> misrepresented goods?
>
> How about if so-and-so claims he is great because he won some dinky "All
> Asia" tournament and it turns out it was a bogus tournament or was just a
> hum-drum nobody-good-was-there tournament. Are you a bad guy if you
> comment on that? Are "running down some really high-level teachers" if you
> question the claims that are made by the supporters?
>
> Are you wrong to point out the other side of any grandiose claim? Is there
> a level of ineptness where you have a responsibility to at least say
> something? What's the level? :^)
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Sigman
SGoo...@ofinterest.ml.org
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> stephen_...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7gi5n5$8gk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <DZ9W2.82$8H....@news.rdc1.tx.home.com>,
>
> >
> >I claimed you were incorrect about Aikido's Unbendable Arm being PengJing
> >(tm) and proved you grossly wrong on it (http://ofInterest.ml.org/UA), so
> >much so that you backed away from that like a smelly prom date. Although
> that
> >article wasn't written specifically with you in mind, it showed how
> egregious
> >your theories of body mechanics are. Your response: "It can be done other
> >ways". It' can't.
>
> I might as well have a little fun with this since the answer will be obvious
> in the next tape that I do.
>
> I don't want to tell you the answer, just like I'm not going to be bullied
> into telling you how the "teacher test" really works. In other words, I
> want you on record for what you're saying. So even though you didn't
> pick up on it (tell me though... weren't you even a little suspicious that
> you were letting yourself be set up?), I'm telling you ahead of time that
> you're not going to look good on this one.
============= Hum… My Response (http://ofInterest.ml.org/ttr) has been "on
record" for almost three years now. It has weathered your rude comments, your
sissified physical threats of "unfriendly martial meetings", your face saving
in person meeting, your request for my lawyer's name and address. All that
and you still want to play the "I'm gonna get you" game? =============
>
> I even gave you your out.... "it can be done other ways"... but you're
> insisting that there is only one way to do the unbendable arm? Would you
> say for instance that there is only one way to punch someone with a fist?
> That all punches use the deltoid muscle and that's the secret?
============= Actually your "it can be done other ways" is YOUR way out. You
haven't yet presented one "other way" to prove your point. But I'm sure it's
because "you won't be bullied into yielding your secrets, eh!" But you'll
sell them for $125. on the weekends. ; )
Furthermore, Aikido's Unbendable Arm (http://ofInterest.ml.org/UA) is a demo
that specifically tests a limited movement in a limited way and your
comparing it to something as broad in scope as a 'punch' shows that you do
not 1) understand the mechanical set up of UA; 2) you do not understand how
that demo isolates its particular movement; 3) how that differs from other
types of movement; and, 3) it seriously calls into question your ability to
evaluate any type of movement from a mechanical perspective.
Face it Mr. Sigman, you are a Chen Stylist (not a bad thing, just a fact) who
cannot get recognition in your own style (not a bad thing, just a fact) so
you have branched out into giving "Internal Strength" seminars (you don't
even teach Tai Chi anymore do you?). Naturally as you go on you will need to
increase your market so I expect you will be adding other arts to your
"internal" collection. I'm surprised you haven't absorbed Italian foil or
epee. =============
>
> Let's see if you can make short, succinct, to-the-point replies, BTW. None
> of your rambling 3 pagers that never seem to answer a question and which
> seem to ignore any answers that you don't want to hear.
============= Ah, the old "you aren't answering the questions" Sigman
response. My responces are long because I insert my answers and comments
into the previous post so I don't miss anything. But it's ok Mr. Sigman,
everything's ok.
Regarding our research project: [I posted to you a few days ago via my ISP's
news server, I saw it via their news server but not yet on 'Deja'. Sorry if
this is redundant.] Where are you finding the "7 years" claim for Professor
Cheng's time with YCF? _13_Treatisies_?
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Goodson
=============
mikel evins
On Thu, 6 May 1999 7:00:21 -0700, Mehran Habibi wrote
(in message <3731A074...@cis.ohio-state.edu>):
> Mikel seems to be fairly well grounded in logic(even if he's quick to take
> offense where non was intended): that, I think, might be an indication that
> he found something.
I haven't taken offense. The issue has nothing to do with taking offense, and
nothing to do with whether offense is intended. That you presume otherwise is
further evidence to me that you are mistaken.
Chas
> Hello,
Hi Ron,
> I believe that we should stand up for our rights and say something if we know
> that someone in the martial arts community is a fraud. Others will only get
> hurt if we don't let them know the truth. If an instructor lies about his or
> her teaching credentials and then teaches others and attracts them to the
> school using those claims then they can be held accountable for it in a court
> of law (at least in the US).
Uh, wait, wait, wait-
'Fraud' is a very particular kind of accusation- it has a definite legal
meaning and can get you in a hell of a pickle calling someone that.
It's a hell of a jump from telling folks that some sonofabitch is a
child molester and talking about 'fraud'.
We are a very fractious community. That is somewhat to be expected
amongst a bunch of fighters, much less fighters with computers. There
are all sorts of things bandied about; the legitimacy of lineages, the
legitimacy of credentials, the legitimacy of 'age' and 'origin'- but
you're going to go a long way before you start dealing with 'fraud'.
> If this has happened to someone you know or if you are interested in finding
> out more about what you can do then visit:
> The Martial Arts Consumer Protection Site
> http://www2.crosswinds.net/japan/~consumer/
Uh oh.....
Chas
Mehran Habibi
"Russell L. Rader" wrote:
> <snip>
> It takes time for even a logical beginner to figure out that someone is
> a shyster.
>
No doubt: what does this have to with anything?
>
> > > I think that a real teacher would have helped him grow more.
> >
> > You're saying that MA teachers(even good ones), help people reach Inner Peace(tm)?
>
> No, unless having the confidence that comes from knowing you really
> could pound the crap out of someone if necessary is Inner Peace(TM).
> I'm saying that his growth as a martial artist would be better under a
> real teacher. And you *KNOW* that my definition of MA does not require
> inner peace, crystals and light.
I didn't think so, but when people start saying 'real teacher' as opposed to hacks, it gets my
hair up: just wanted to make sure. IMO, a 'real' teacher can still be a crackpot: all it takes
is that he teaching you good fighting skill.
> <snip>
> > I was thinking more of a scenario where you might tell a friend that a girl is bad news:
> > he doesn't want to hear it, and he's not going to. He needs convincing. Besides, you
> > could be wrong about the girl: hence, my original position(to Sigman) that you're better
> > off(in general) keeping your thoughts to yourself.
>
> If that is the case, then you can't help him, true. But what if he does
> listen to you?
Then, based on _your_ opinion, he declined a chance to find true love. Better, IMO, that he
does what he thinks is right.
> <snip>> Smartass: I didn't say "everything that doesn't kill you': Of course, there is a
> > threshold for this sorta thing. But OTOH, not all pain is bad.
>
> OK, fair enough. I have just met some overly macho types who don't know
> when to quit. They used that phrase a lot.
>
Reminds me of an old joke:
Guy: "I hate that! Stop doing that! My ex-wife used to do that all the time"
Girl: "what?"
Guy: "breath"
> <snip>
> > I never said it was: you should see my shins from last night. ;-*
>
> I sometimes wonder how many MAists are closet masochists. ;-)
>
> Russ
Let's start counting: how are _your_ shins?
M
Mehran Habibi
mikel evins wrote:
> <snip>
> I haven't taken offense. The issue has nothing to do with taking offense, and
> nothing to do with whether offense is intended. That you presume otherwise is
> further evidence to me that you are mistaken.
If you find someone's comments 'patronizing and depressing', then chances are
that you have taken some offense, despite your protestations to the contrary. The
fact that you refuse to admit this reduces my optimism about your willingness to
be forthright in this issue.
M