# Another Wing Chun Forum Thread Locked!!



## Danny T (Mar 15, 2016)

Wow. Come on guys; in the past 6-8 months there have been more threads locked than in the past 5 Years!
This used to be a awesome 'Discussion Forum' but has, over the past several months, become the Wing Chun 'Argument Forum'. And it has become such due to a specific few who can not and will not simply agree to disagree. You few, with your egos, are ruining this forum for the rest of the members.

 If you can not simply discuss and must prove your every opinion maybe this isn't the place for you. 
State your opinion, thoughts, and ideas. Allow all to state theirs as well. Ask questions and answer questions asked of you, but if you can not simple discuss and must resort to name calling, proving another is wrong, and have to one up someone please go some where else.


----------



## Marnetmar (Mar 15, 2016)

Any reason mods aren't taking further action than simply locking threads? It's like trying to cure cancer by removing half of a tumor.


----------



## Steve (Mar 15, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> Any reason mods aren't taking further action than simply locking threads? It's like trying to cure cancer by removing half of a tumor.


From the outside, as a completely objective observer with no stake, I can sympathize with the moderators.  It's impossible for me to distinguish between the two sides.  I read the last thread with interest, but I don't see anything to distinguish one side from the other, as far as respectful, constructive dialogue.  Both sides are entrenched.  And each is accusing the other of exactly the same poor behavior.  You have both sides accusing the other of managing multiple accounts, not listening, being rude, actively trolling and, oh yeah, not having the "real" Wing Chun (or VT or WC or whatever).

Which half of the tumor is the right one to go?  I suspect if you ask one side, they would say that the other is the one that is causing all the problems. 

To be clear, I have no idea what kind of discussion is happening amongst the administration.  I'm just sharing my own observations, for what they are worth.


----------



## geezer (Mar 15, 2016)

Steve's right on the money here. My opinions about WC/VT/WT happen to align pretty closely with one group, but in all honesty I have to say that _both_ groups have pretty much taken an equal role in provoking and prolonging the bickering that is such a problem. It's really like a couple of kids fighting in the back seat until Dad (the mods) finally have to pull the car over.

The problem is, these guys have the potential to contribute a lot. And if the Mods ban all four parties that are involved, we will lose a lot of our energy on this forum. The same thing totally killed another forum where some of these people were active previously. I just wish they'd all chill, and lighten up. Or, if they can't, at least put the opposite group on_* ignore*_ so they don't get drawn into more arguments.

Failing that, maybe somebody will get _banned_. These guys are worse than bratty teenagers! I know because I have two at home _and _I teach high school art. The last class of the day is always rowdy. Usually there's a whole group involved. I can't catch them all pranking, so sometimes I have to just grab one and send him up to the office. A _scapegoat _and warning to the others. Not the fairest solution, but it usually works.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 15, 2016)

I have to admit, that one went on a lot longer than I thought it would. I expected that to be locked a long time ago.


----------



## Pat M (Mar 15, 2016)

Respect the ART and not your EGO 

Following that simple guide will go a long way.


----------



## mograph (Mar 15, 2016)

Pat M said:


> Respect the ART and not your EGO.


Unfortunately, some people might think they're protecting the art as they see it. Protecting a world view is pretty common, and gets us into trouble all over the place. (shrug)


----------



## Danny T (Mar 15, 2016)

Not wanting to see any of the participants banned. It is what I am wanting to prevent. Everyone has a perspective we can learn about and from. Well many us can.
If you can't concede or accept another person's perspective or opinion state you disagree and move on. Or better just stay out of the discussion all together. What does it serve getting into an argument, proving someone wrong, or that you've won an opinionated argument other than proving you to be an annoyance and stifling any real discussion of the subject matter with others.


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 15, 2016)

It really is only Guy B and LFJ to be honest. They are on both Martial Talk and KFM forum giving everyone difficulty. Especially Alan for some reason. But they never produce anything. They just talk ****.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 15, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> Any reason mods aren't taking further action than simply locking threads? It's like trying to cure cancer by removing half of a tumor.


A note regarding moderator actions...

Locking a thread is one of the few VISIBLE actions we take.  Most moderator actions, generally after discussion and consensus among the staff, are handled between the Mods and the individual user.  We don't generally share what happens.  Our actions can range from finding no violation, to general warnings ,private messages or 0 point warnings, or infraction points, even suspension and bans.  But we rarely announce actions against a particular user publicly; nobody really wants to have their indiscretions handled in full public view.

Folks, we get that passions are high.  You love what you do.  And we want folks to disagree -- but do it politely.  Otherwise, MT would be boring as hell...  So, handle disagreements with class, and you can debate and argue about things until the cows come home...


----------



## LFJ (Mar 16, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> It really is only Guy B and LFJ to be honest. They are on both Martial Talk and KFM forum giving everyone difficulty. Especially Alan for some reason. But they never produce anything. They just talk ****.



A bit biased, I think. I don't believe I've been at all belligerent or talked _edit._ For public record, I received no warning on that topic, so the moderators must agree it wasn't me in any violation.

I was asked for a sparring video, and posted a clip showing a bit. It was pretty well-received. 

I wouldn't think it's giving Alan "difficulty" to ask for a timestamp for something he says is directly applicable when he has many public fight videos, and I don't see it. 

If that's unreasonable or offensive, I don't know, maybe he shouldn't make things public? Didn't think I was putting anyone on the spot, given that the fight videos have already been made.

I don't see how I've been offensive. Some just felt the need to turn things into an argument. In any case, I will try to keep your feelings in mind going forward.

Honestly, I'm just really interested in seeing it work in free fighting. Sure, I have my doubts, but that's why I want to see it. Might be worth learning if it can be shown to work!


----------



## guy b. (Mar 16, 2016)

LFJ said:


> A bit biased, I think. I don't believe I've been at all belligerent or talked _edit._ For public record, I received no warning on that topic, so the moderators must agree it wasn't me in any violation.
> 
> I was asked for a sparring video, and posted a clip showing a bit. It was pretty well-received.
> 
> ...



Good post. I agree that asking to see something made public in videos produced for public consumption/advertising is not too unreasonable. 

I have had personal disagreements with Alan in the past, the most recent of which involved him challenging me to a fight with someone else on this forum. But I don't see how this personal drama invalidates the basic question that was being asked on the thread. I have nothing against the CSL group and find their fights to be interesting to watch, which is why I am curious about their wing chun.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 16, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> It really is only Guy B and LFJ to be honest. They are on both Martial Talk and KFM forum giving everyone difficulty. Especially Alan for some reason. But they never produce anything. They just talk ****.



This does seem a bit biased and doesn't reflect the way you have interacted with me in private messages.


----------



## Marnetmar (Mar 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Good post. I agree that asking to see something made public in videos produced for public consumption/advertising is not too unreasonable.
> 
> I have had personal disagreements with Alan in the past, the most recent of which involved him challenging me to a fight with someone else on this forum. But I don't see how this personal drama invalidates the basic question that was being asked on the thread. I have nothing against the CSL group and find their fights to be interesting to watch, which is why I am curious about their wing chun.



Just my two cents, but this isn't what I've seen. Unless I'm thinking of a different group of people, you lot sometimes act like Alan and Robert Chu are running some sort of underground crime syndicate for WC including baseless accusations of Robert Chu himself allegedly bullying others around. That's not cool man :/


----------



## LFJ (Mar 16, 2016)

No idea what group you're talking about, @Marnetmar, but I ain't part of it.

I'm not so familiar with the guy and can barely say I even know who he is, apart from being Alan's teacher and having studied a few different lineages.

I've never given any such opinion on him in any post I've ever made on any forum. I don't even have an opinion of him, having not seen much of anything from him or interacted with him.


----------



## Marnetmar (Mar 16, 2016)

Ah, I must be thinking of a different group then. My apologies!


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 16, 2016)

I remember a post where Guy B asked me I thought you wanted to fight, or words to that effect. That is not discussion, just passion over certain perceived slights. It has come to the point that a wind up has become contaminated, thus I apologise to Guy B if if I have slighted him. However passion can descend into fanaticism over rational thought. Surely Martial Talk is a mechanism for thoughts and ideas for cross talk on what members train and learn, not a playground for bitching on what linage is king. At least that is what I have derived as the outcome on most threads. Discussion not criticism IMHO, not jump on something just because it is a certain member posting. I count myself as being guilty, because being human, things can quickly become infectious.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 16, 2016)

Hmm, two people *X *my post to "disagree" but don't bother explaining themselves.

Seems rather obnoxious and unproductive in a thread about trying to understand each other and get along...

People being unwilling to explain themselves and just being argumentative is a big part of the problem on this forum. 

Not many straight talkers here.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 16, 2016)

Interesting...it would seem that the thread "Another Wing Chun Forum Thread Locked!!" is destine to be locked as well.... here let me see if this helps


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2016)

Allow me to ask a simple question here.

If A puts up a clip online and B says it's a bad clip, should B put up a better clip to prove why he had said that A's clip is bad?

In other words, can you say something is bad if you can't prove that you will be able to do better? IMO, if you can't support what you want to say, you should not say it in the first place.


----------



## Steve (Mar 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Allow me to ask a simple question here.
> 
> If A puts up a clip online and B says it's a bad clip, should B put up a better clip to prove why he had said that A's clip is bad?
> 
> In other words, can you say something is bad if you can't prove that you will be able to do better?


I would say, "it depends."  All things are relative, but my opinion is that a lot of the butthurt around here stems from a need to compare one thing to another, rather than taking the issue at hand on its own merits.  And I often observe that where no comparison is explicitly stated, the butthurt individual will infer it and get upset anyway.

If A puts up a clip, and B says it's bad, the only thing B needs to do (IMO) is support his position.  Take, for example, some anti-grappling videos.  I've gone on record as saying that some of these are very bad.  I'm not commenting on the entire art of WC.  I am commenting on those specific videos.  I try to articulate specifically why I think they're bad, but don't feel any obligation to post something better.  That's a quick road to an X vs Y thread, which is what often takes the threads on a bad route.


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> This does seem a bit biased and doesn't reflect the way you have interacted with me in private messages.



I know. But just over it. Nothing personal. Im just saying what I think about current forum events.


----------



## geezer (Mar 16, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Hmm, two people *X *my post to "disagree" but don't bother explaining themselves.
> 
> Seems rather obnoxious and unproductive in a thread about trying to understand each other and get along...
> 
> ...



Using words like "obnoxious" and suggesting that there are few "straight talkers" i.e. _few honest people_ here makes a strong point for sure, but only hardens them in their positions. Did you watch the clip in post #19? ....At any rate, I found it very informative.

Funny thing is that unlike the statistical majority of people (according to the data presented) I find that I sometimes have a better chance of persuading people online than in person ...especially at my job. In person, my coworkers all have ego invested. Presenting convincing arguments contrary to their positions often  threatens their status. So I just back off. Here, debating WC/VT/WT (an _avocation_ that I love) I have nothing personal at stake.

When I do disagree with the opinions of others, I can try to politely _persuade_ the other party and failing that, I just let it go. Besides, as pointed out in the clip above, although you may be able to persuade someone to consider your point of view,  you will _*not*_ "win" once it becomes a contentious argument even if you present conclusive evidence. Almost certainly all you will end up doing is galvanizing the other person's beliefs no matter how irrational they may seem to you. Look how that has happened time and again on this forum.

I'm of the opinion that those involved in these ongoing disputes have shown themselves to be intelligent and articulate. What they seem to lack is the self control necessary to conduct a civil discussion. Just like the humorous characters arguing in that video, you and they seem obsessed with being right. Of course, I may be totally wrong about this!


----------



## guy b. (Mar 16, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Hmm, two people *X *my post to "disagree" but don't bother explaining themselves.
> 
> Seems rather obnoxious and unproductive in a thread about trying to understand each other and get along...
> 
> ...



I would agree that people being unwilling to explain has caused problems on the forum.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In other words, can you say something is bad if you can't prove that you will be able to do better? IMO, if you can't support what you want to say, you should not say it in the first place.



Well yes of course you can. If that wasn't the case then businesses would be run by the fastest and hardest working manual labourers rather than by the most creative and inspirational CEO's, sports coaches would all be the best players rather than the most strategic thinkers, armies would be led by the men on the ground best at killing people, rather than by the best generals. And so on. 

It is perfectly fine to have a discussion about martial arts without resorting to video battles and challenge fights every few posts. In fact I think that if people realised we are here only to talk about VT rather than to do it, we would probably get on a lot better.


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Well yes of course you can. If that wasn't the case then businesses would be run by the fastest and hardest working manual labourers rather than by the most creative and inspirational CEO's, sports coaches would all be the best players rather than the most strategic thinkers, armies would be led by the men on the ground best at killing people, rather than by the best generals. And so on.
> 
> It is perfectly fine to have a discussion about martial arts without resorting to video battles and challenge fights every few posts. In fact I think that if people realised we are here only to talk about VT rather than to do it, we would probably get on a lot better.



You have a good point. But regarding the challenge " fight"  Alan said  if you dont think Peter is skilled then hes happy to come and spar with you so you have a proper evaluation. Saying you visited 8 years ago and asking for money to spar when you always imply that you are a good fighter and would be able to handle it no problem is odd to me,  whats the problem? If you were sparring all the time then you would have the same mentality as me ( I presume) in which sparring is sparring and there is no ego really involved apart from testing skills . Are you expecting some sort of gang war or a full fledged fight to the death ?  The only reason I could think of is you are scared or lazy, what happened to your Logical VT thinking that should be able to beat everything ?

Nothing personal. Typing in a forum makes it impossible to properly realise the intention of words, dont think im " mad" .  I think you are a bit of a hypocrite to be honest though.

Obviously im with Alan and agree with what he has said . I didnt even know he was on this forum though.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 16, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> whats the problem?



The problem is that Alan was offended and angry. Instead of using words to deal with the problem he issued a challenge fight. That isn't how to win an argument.

It is an extreme version of the flawed argument being made above - i.e. you aren't allowed to comment on the (fully public) MMA record of fighter x unless you can _beat him in a fight!_ It is just wrong. A bad argument.

You can claim that Alan only wanted egoless sparring as usual, but personally I would tend to avoid fighting when pride and temper is flared unless I was getting paid for it. The people I usually spar with are friends or at least acquaintances. I don't think there is much to be gained from sparring after an argument. Mutual benefit and all that.



dudewingchun said:


> If you were sparring all the time then you would have the same mentality as me ( I presume) in which sparring is sparring and there is no ego really involved apart from testing skills



Issuing a challenge on a forum is pretty much the definition of ego involvement. I think that Alan did it because he thought it was a trump card which would end the discussion. I don't think it did him any favours personally. It looks very weak in terms of argument content, and is an example of the fallacy outlined in the post above.

Please stop trying to slip in deductions about whether I am really sparring often and insinuating that I am not being truthful. This is just more of the same thing that got the other thread closed. My reasons for not accepting Alan's challenge are outlined above and, although I understand you are angry about it, I believe I dealt with it in the right way.


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> The problem is that Alan was offended and angry. Instead of using words to deal with the problem he issued a challenge fight. That isn't how to win an argument.
> 
> You can call it sparring as usual, but personally I would tend to avoid fighting when pride and temper is flared unless I was getting paid for it. The people I usually spar with are friends or at least acquaintences.
> 
> ...



I straight up disagree with everything you just said. It seems like you saw his messages and created your own intention about what he said. Did Alan tell you he thought it was a trump card to end discussion ? or did you just come up with that based on what you thought the intention of his written words were ?

I do not think Alan was actually angry. He just does not take ******** from anyone. Do you need him to sugarcoat his words to make you happy ?  You offended his good friend and belittled his skills when me and Alan both know that Pete is a very good fighter. Its not about winning an argument online. You say Peter is no good and you can handle it, which is only something that can be verified in REAL LIFE. How is that supposed to be proven through words ? Hes not going to come beat the **** out of you in some rage and not stop.

How about I pay you ?  Whats your price ? Will you then ?  because I genuinely would like to see your WSL Ving Tsun too. Just tap if things dont end up going your way. We live in a time where we can record anything on our phones. Actions speak louder then words.

If this was me in your situation, I would of already posted the video of me and him sparring.

I have zero personal malice towards you and LFJ but that doesn't stop me from saying what I think when I disagree.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 16, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Did Alan tell you he thought it was a trump card to end discussion ? or did you just come up with that based on what you thought the intention of his written words were ?



That interpretation is giving Alan the benefit of the doubt. What is the alternative? That he routinely issues physical challenges to people that disagree with him using words? I think that Alan didn't want to keep talking about it, for whatever reason, and so said something silly. Since neither of us is inside Alan's head, I guess we will never really know. 



dudewingchun said:


> You offended his good friend and belittled his skills when me and Alan both know that Pete is a very good fighter.



This is a very strange interpretation of what I posted on the forum. There is no shame in identifying the level of a fighter from his record. Records are public. It doesn't belittle anyone. It is quite possible to be a 'very good fighter' and a low to mid level MMA fighter. It is all a matter of perspective. 



dudewingchun said:


> hich is only something that can be verified in REAL LIFE



I was talking about Peter's MMA record, his level in the sport, not launching a personal attack against him.



dudewingchun said:


> Whats your price ? Will you then ? because I genuinely would like to see your WSL Ving Tsun too. Just tap if things dont end up going your way. We live in a time where we can record anything on our phones. Actions speak louder then words.



You want to fly me to NZ so that you can fight me, and you wish to record the encounter on your phone?


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> That interpretation is giving Alan the benefit of the doubt. What is the alternative? That he routinely issues physical challenges to people that disagree with him using words? I think that Alan didn't want to keep talking about it, for whatever reason, and so said something silly. Since neither of us is inside Alan's head, I guess we will never really know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not going to reply because this could go on forever. 

But no I meant pay for you to spar Pete since that was your condition. If I was a millionaire I would be buying your ticket right now but im not. 

Lets just agree to disagree on this and leave it at that.


----------



## Tames D (Mar 16, 2016)

I wonder if the ban hammer is gonna come down on Mr. Orr and dudewingchun? I understand challenges are an automatic ban.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 16, 2016)

geezer said:


> few "straight talkers" i.e. _few honest people_



I just meant direct and plain speaking. 

There is a lot of tap dancing done when some people are pressed on simple things. 

Not that they are trying to be dishonest, just vague and evasive when faced with difficult questions.



> you and they seem obsessed with being right.



Well, I don't do the tap dancing. I welcome logical critiques of my method. Might learn something from an outside perspective.

The thing is, though, when an argument is brought upon me and I explain what I do in detail, people end up accepting that it makes sense even if they do something different. 

Like my interpretation of "bridge" in my lineage's fighting strategy. Or I'm asked for a clip of sparring, show a bit, and it is pretty well-received.

It's when I give a logical argument against other ideas, that they just tell me I'm "wrong" without explaining exactly how or simply *X* my post. 

So, I say there aren't many straight talkers here.


----------



## geezer (Mar 17, 2016)

LFJ said:


> It's when I give a logical argument against other ideas, that they just tell me I'm "wrong" without explaining exactly how or simply *X* my post. ...So, I say there aren't many straight talkers here.



Did you actually watch the video _Xue_ posted on the previous page? It doesn't matter that your arguments seem logical and convincing to _you_. They probably won't be seen that way by others once you've developed an antagonistic relationship with them on the forum. Really, why not just accept that? 

And when you say that there aren't many _straight talkers_, consider that that's exactly how you and Guy come off to a lot of people.


----------



## dudewingchun (Mar 17, 2016)

Tames D said:


> I wonder if the ban hammer is gonna come down on Mr. Orr and dudewingchun? I understand challenges are an automatic ban.



Really ? I didn't realise. Its not a challenge though anyway. We are on a martial arts forum and the people in the forum cant handle doing martial arts in real life ? boggles my mind.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 17, 2016)

geezer said:


> Did you actually watch the video _Xue_ posted on the previous page? It doesn't matter that your arguments seem logical and convincing to _you_. They probably won't be seen that way by others once you've developed an antagonistic relationship with them on the forum. Really, why not just accept that?



Yeah, must be the "caveman effect". People get frustrated when pressed on difficult questions, but rather than rationally consider why the question is causing them difficulty, or just defend their positions with facts and details, they get angry and argumentative.

It has happened to me before, in many areas, that I've been faced with a more rational argument. My first and natural reaction was to try and logically defend my current beliefs. But when it came to the point that my mistakes were obvious, I didn't get angry. I accepted the facts and adjusted my beliefs accordingly.

If other people aren't able to do that, I can only assume they don't care whether their beliefs are true, logic sound, or fighting strategies really applicable.

One poster even admitted they don't care whether or not their system actually works in a fight. I wish more people were as straight as that. There's no shame as long as you don't pretend to care when you really don't.



> And when you say that there aren't many _straight talkers_, consider that that's exactly how you and Guy come off to a lot of people.



As straight talkers? I've probably clearly explained my system in more detail than anyone else on this forum, and have been welcoming to criticism. I don't get angry at criticism. I just give more explanations if I think it is misplaced.

There have been a number of posters saying they now feel they understand the system I train more and can see where I'm coming from.

Unfortunately, I can't say that about too many others. Most of the time, I have no clue what their idea of Wing Chun is, even after pages of discussion. Because all we get is a big tap dance and vague responses.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 17, 2016)

LFJ, I sadly think you assume people being vague is a matter of intention. Not a language barrier.

You are maybe not always understood, and if you are then you might not properly understand others text. One personal opinion about your discussion tactics is that you seem to want to fill in the blanks rather than ask if you understood things correctly and as such you turn a discussion to argumentation.
When you fill in blanks you make assumptions for others on how or why they do something, and if incorrect it leads to people being upset with you for troll-like behaviour.

I can understand that this is not your intention, and if you do not like my observation then I am sorry to have given it to you.

Now as for me? I am guessing my problem is getting a point out correctly. Reason being that I tend to sometimes focus on a certain area of a question or comment and miss to convey the whole picture. This is of course just an assumption on a flaw of mine.

So where is now the bonfire and guitar when spilling our guts here?


----------



## LFJ (Mar 17, 2016)

Phobius said:


> One personal opinion about your discussion tactics is that you seem to want to fill in the blanks rather than ask if you understood things correctly and as such you turn a discussion to argumentation.
> When you fill in blanks you make assumptions for others on how or why they do something, and if incorrect it leads to people being upset with you for troll-like behaviour.



I realize this, because there are a lot of blanks.

I often end up chasing people around the blanks if I don't make pointed questions.

If their answers are always vague, and if I don't fill in a blank with a possibility to drive the conversation, it just dies and we get nowhere.

Rather than get upset at my assumptions and argue about how terrible that is, I wish they'd just be direct and leave no room for assumptions!

If people aren't enthusiastic about openly discussing their systems, I gotta wonder why they visit a discussion forum.


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 17, 2016)

I've always said that the root of all the issues and perceived tension in a online discussion forum is a difference in how things are defined. If we all have varying ideas on the definition of say...'hand chasing'...(_and throw in the fact that we *all* drink our own particular blend of lineage-flavored Kool Aid_).... we'll never get anywhere when discussing WC/VT/WT.


----------



## Danny T (Mar 17, 2016)

Another Wow! 
This thread has become a very productive exchange.

Food for thought.
There are 3 primary modes that humans use to process thoughts; visual, auditory, kinesthetic. Both use emotion and physical feelings. Understanding these modes can help to develop rapport and a connection with others.

Some may have people have an easy time describing their thoughts and ideas. Writing them not so much. Some people are very vocal and can speak their thoughts but putting them in a written form can be difficult and then there are those who can do or show but then verbalization or writing can be hard for them.

I for one have a very difficult time putting my thoughts on paper. My mind switches channels very quickly and the ability to sit and type out a thought is rather time consuming for me. In the time it takes me to type a sentence my mind will have covered 6, 7, 8 other thoughts or ways to describe what I am wanting to convey and of course I then have to rewrite my ever changing thoughts. I am a kinesthetic person. To have to sit and listen or to read instructions and do what is described is not simple. I have to physically do. For me to sit and write out describing what I am physically doing, the physical feelings, my mental thoughts is not simple and does not take just a few minutes.

To understand others and how to communicate differing ideas and opinions we must understand how they think, how they communicate, and how they absorb information.


----------



## Marnetmar (Mar 17, 2016)

_Leaves for a day or so

Comes back and checks the thread

NOPE

Leaves again_


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 17, 2016)

Countdown to thread lock


----------



## geezer (Mar 17, 2016)

Danny T said:


> ...To understand others and how to communicate differing ideas and opinions we must understand how they think, how they communicate, and how they absorb information.



Yeah. And the hard part is to accept that others may communicate in a different way, may be holding very different presuppositions and may have a strong emotional attachment to those presuppositions. And then, of course there is the _ego factor_.

One thing that has helped me be able to enjoy communicating with others on this forum is that I gave up my "true believer" point of view a long time ago. I still practice an offshoot of WT with a guy who is definitely good. But I also train some other stuff, and I actively question the efficacy of everything I do. I believe what I have trained is a very good system, but it doesn't have all the answers. Believing that makes me a good deal more humble and less preachy than I once was.

When I ask for explanations from you guys, it is because I'm really interested in the solutions others have found. This is not the case for those who already believe that they or their sifu, lineage, etc. already have "the right" answer. If you already have the_ right_ answers, then all your posts will be directed at proving others _wrong_. All your questions will be constructed to elicit information used to support your argument and discredit the other person's position. If this is the way a forum member comes across, others will quickly tire of trying to answer their questions, or give vague and evasive answers so as not to feed what appears to be a very insincere line of questioning. Ultimately each side sees the other as being insincere, deceptive and, as LFJ noted, "not a straight talker".

Without taking sides, this is exactly how team LFJ-GB and team KPM-SG have been treating each other. The crazy thing is that neither side can see it or admit that they have a role in provoking the other group. Now _that_ is not being a "straight talker"!!!


----------



## Steve (Mar 17, 2016)

geezer said:


> Yeah. And the hard part is to accept that others may communicate in a different way, may be holding very different presuppositions and may have a strong emotional attachment to those presuppositions. And then, of course there is the _ego factor_.
> 
> One thing that has helped me be able to enjoy communicating with others on this forum is that I gave up my "true believer" point of view a long time ago. I still practice an offshoot of WT with a guy who is definitely good. But I also train some other stuff, and I actively question the efficacy of everything I do. I believe what I have trained is a very good system, but it doesn't have all the answers. Believing that makes me a good deal more humble and less preachy than I once was.
> 
> ...


I would like this post twice, if I could!


----------



## LFJ (Mar 18, 2016)

geezer said:


> Ultimately each side sees the other as being insincere, deceptive and, as LFJ noted, "not a straight talker".



Hmm, I can name at least half a dozen people here who have said they now feel they have a better understanding of the system I train and can see where I'm coming from, even if they prefer something different. Several publicly and others via PM.

That's including KPM himself from "the other team" on the recent "bridge" topic.

I don't think a deceptive, non-straight talker can get such results.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 18, 2016)

geezer said:


> The crazy thing is that neither side can see it or admit that they have a role in provoking the other group. Now _that_ is not being a "straight talker"!!!



Well, I truly don't see how asking pointed questions can be taken as provocation. I for one welcome challenging questions.

As I said, I don't get upset at it. I just provide more information if I find it misplaced criticism. I imagine one would only get frustrated if they find the questions difficult to answer. In which case, they should ask themselves why.

In various areas of life, such as business, philosophy, or martial arts, I've always tried to find out what those who hold opposing views from mine really think, because I might find my beliefs are not justified as I think. It has happened more than once, in each area, that I've adjusted my beliefs to match the evidence.

I don't understand people who like to sit content and not search outside of their own groups which will be filled with confirmation biases.

Matter o' fact, I've asked people to post videos from my lineage and provide any criticism, such as how it might be at all indirect or sub-optimally efficient, or any other thing they might find disagreeable from their perspective.

So far, only one person has done that (here). And when I provided explanation of what they were watching (here), the questioning ended. So, I don't know what else to think.

The only criticism that might be valid is the "one-dimensional" thing, but I don't find that negative. The efficacy of VT training relies on its simplicity and directness, in both training methodology and fighting strategy. So I'm not actually looking to be so multifaceted with my VT. I don't need a _taan-sau_ with a dozen applications.

A true criticism would be something like a perceived violation of established principles, or something that is just impractical. I would most like such errors to be pointed out to me, if I'm making them. Why others would be agitated by having perceived violations pointed out to them, I will never understand! Again, it's something I welcome.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 18, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> I've always said that the root of all the issues and perceived tension in a online discussion forum is a difference in how things are defined. If we all have varying ideas on the definition of say...'hand chasing'...(_and throw in the fact that we *all* drink our own particular blend of lineage-flavored Kool Aid_).... we'll never get anywhere when discussing WC/VT/WT.



Step 1 to solving this problem might be to start a thread explaining your interpretation and inviting others to do the same. Don't you think? 

We had one such thread on directness and efficiency principles.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 18, 2016)

LFJ said:


> A true criticism would be something like a perceived violation of established principles, or something that is just impractical. I would most like such errors to be pointed out to me, if I'm making them. Why others would be agitated by having perceived violations pointed out to them, I will never understand! Again, it's something I welcome.



This kind of criticism can't exist without a video demonstrating how you move or do drills. Without knowing how I move, you can not state anything about how I violate concepts or principles. This is a dilemma I have myself due to my wish of remaining fairly anonymous is greater.

Understand that you have similar dilemma.

My concern is that flaws are mostly viewed based on our own experience and the system we have been taught. Not from the view of a fighting context in itself. Reason being that most if not all of us are not clever enough, if anyone is, to figure out implications on advanced level in fighting format.

When someone points out a flaw it usually ends up in a lineage vs lineage debate because rather than adjusting to a pointed out flaw, it first has to be debated if it is a flaw in the first place. If mind goes apart on that, then the outcome should be that there is no flaw but this is sadly not where discussions have ended as of late. Sadly there has been a need constantly to find the ultimate answer in white or black. Truth in my view is more greyish.


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 18, 2016)

LFJ said:


> So far, only one person has done that (here). And when I provided explanation of what they were watching (here), the questioning ended. So, I don't know what else to think.



The questioning ended because of our differences in how we define things, as I noted earlier in this thread.
I wasn't about to continue the discussion you just quoted because to do so would have been pointless, since it was obvious our definitions are not aligned.
So, to me and my definitions, WSLPBVT violates basic ideas and is an inefficient method. And that is ok by me because I don't train in it.

To be fair, LFJ and Guy both seemed to be quite open and interested in my post on that thread. Especially since it involved them potentially learning of a perceived inefficiency in the VT they practice. So, from a questioning attitude / willingness to have things pointed out to them, they get a thumbs up for that.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 18, 2016)

Phobius said:


> This kind of criticism can't exist without a video demonstrating how you move or do drills.



Most lineages have plenty of video available to look at.



wckf92 said:


> The questioning ended because of our differences in how we define things, as I noted earlier in this thread.
> I wasn't about to continue the discussion you just quoted because to do so would have been pointless, since it was obvious our definitions are not aligned.
> So, to me and my definitions, WSLPBVT violates basic ideas and is an inefficient method. And that is ok by me because I don't train in it.



That's why I said I didn't know exactly what you were saying was inefficient about it and asked you to clarify.

I mean, just saying something is inefficient yet not being willing to clarify what you mean or explain your own definitions, is quite pointless. Why start or join the discussion at all?

Say what you mean. Give your definitions. Make things clear. Straight talk, you know? Then we can have fruitful conversations around here, and at least understand each other.

I don't understand the unwillingness of some to explain exactly what they mean.


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 18, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Most lineages have plenty of video available to look at.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My bad, thought I had clarified. In brief, he (PB) "chases hands". He trains his flock to "chase hands". Thus, my viewpoint on his VT stands. Now, not to drag that topic back up; but this is exactly my point... you can counter with XYZ about how he is not chasing hands etc etc etc. And, this is because we have varying definitions and objectives about our individual systems. Hence, my post 38 in this thread.  

You brought up a good idea about starting a thread about definitions...but I predict that may also quickly spiral out of control  lol.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 18, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> You brought up a good idea about starting a thread about definitions...but I predict that may also quickly spiral out of control  lol.



Well, let's not be pessimists. I'm sure the first few posts people make can be detailed and insightful.

After everyone's definitions have been made clear, who cares what direction the thread goes? It's the nature of conversation to flow and change course.

Guy b. made a good point recently, that if we all stay perfectly on topic, after the initial question has been answered by all, each thread will end within 2 pages.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 18, 2016)

I think we would have to start by discussing the term "system" in comparison to "style". Which means we have to discuss what "style" means.... so where do we start? 

Oh and if you wonder, my version system is the lineage we train. Style is how what been taught is being used and is very individual. This is the reason why I dont think one can assume what is seen on a YouTube video from a person's lineage can be used to provide criticism. Sadly. Life as well as online discussions would be so much simpler had I another view on things.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 18, 2016)

Well, let's see.

A system has a set of guiding principles. One's behaviors are developed according to these principles through the system's training methodology. Can we not then expect these principles to be part of one's personal style?

So, if we see a disconnect between theory and training, can we not also expect the line between theory and application to be broken? 

Or do we just take people at their word that they're applying their theory despite the training not lining up?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 18, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> In brief, he (PB) "chases hands". He trains his flock to "chase hands". Thus, my viewpoint on his VT stands. Now, not to drag that topic back up; but this is exactly my point... you can counter with XYZ about how he is not chasing hands etc etc etc. And, this is because we have varying definitions and objectives about our individual systems.



Did you define what you mean by hand chasing anywhere?


----------



## mograph (Mar 21, 2016)

Danny T said:


> There are 3 primary modes that humans use to process thoughts; visual, auditory, kinesthetic.


Well ... sorry to say:
Learning styles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mograph (Mar 22, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> Countdown to thread lock


How "meta."


----------



## mograph (Mar 22, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If A puts up a clip online and B says it's a bad clip, should B put up a better clip to prove why he had said that A's clip is bad?


Nope.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> In other words, can you say something is bad if you can't prove that you will be able to do better? IMO, if you can't support what you want to say, you should not say it in the first place.


That applies to the person who put up the original video: if he can't support the argument made by the video, he should not have put the video up. The person critiquing the video only needs to support his written argument in a written fashion. 

A puts up video.
B says it's bad.
A asks why.
B makes his case by describing why he thinks the video is bad. He makes a claim (e.g. "the red shirt opens himself up to attack, and this is bad"), and cites evidence from the video (e.g. "he opens his left side at 1:35"), possibly citing authoritative sources (e.g. historical texts) if required for authoritative (ethos) appeal (e.g. in 1932, Chen XX wrote "you shouldn't open your left side to attack").
A could legitimately respond with something like, "agreed, but it was a demo, meant to show the form of a specific punch. Normally, red would turn to the right and block," explaining why the move was shown that way.
However, if A were to say, "if you're so smart, why don't you make your own video?" it would be an attempt to deflect criticism from the original video, and would be irrelevant to the point at hand.

Say, if I critique an author's writing, it's not incumbent on me to rewrite the author's work. 
Instead, I have to make a clear claim (e.g. "disconnected paragraph structure") then give evidence (e.g. "paragraph 2 ends with a rhetorical question, but the start of paragraph 3 does nothing to suggest an answer, or a direction to an answer to that question"). 
If, in response, the author wanted to address my criticism, he would have to challenge my claim, challenge my evidence, or challenge the rule on which my claim was based (e.g. "yes, they are disconnected, but the piece was written in a style evocative of X writer, who is well known for writing disconnected paragraphs. It was a parody of that author's work, in other words.") 

In a web forum, it is only incumbent on B to make an effective _written_ argument as to why A's video is bad.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 22, 2016)

Great post describing the forum interaction method of a straight talker!


----------



## mograph (Mar 22, 2016)

If I wanted to show X concept in a video, but then I watched the video again before posting it, and realized that X concept couldn't be _seen_ in the video ... I would still post the video, but I wouldn't say that it shows X concept in the video description.

(Some of you guys may be talking about a specific video, but I don't know which one you're talking about. I'm speaking generally.)

Now, if someone puts up a video and says something like, "here's what I do, enjoy!" I wouldn't be hard on the poster, because they're making only one claim: "here's what I do." The video's claims could only be challenged if it did not show that person doing what they do. That's its only claim. 
Instead, any criticism on that video would best be delivered kindly, to _help_ the original poster, probably as a question: "I see that you kept weight on your left foot. What was your intention there?" Something like that.

.. in my opinion.


----------



## mograph (Mar 22, 2016)

mograph said:


> If I wanted to show X concept in a video, but then I watched the video again before posting it, and realized that X concept couldn't be _seen_ in the video ... I would still post the video, but I wouldn't say that it shows X concept in the video description.


Clarification: if the concept could be seen, but was _subtle_, I'd probably tell the viewers what they should be looking for, e.g. "at 1:25, I sink and deliver force by spiralling from the ground."

Back to criticism: personal attacks are a bad idea. Those are called _ad hominem _attacks, and are logical fallacies. Never attack the person.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 22, 2016)

mograph said:


> Nope.
> 
> That applies to the person who put up the original video: if he can't support the argument made by the video, he should not have put the video up. The person critiquing the video only needs to support his written argument in a written fashion.
> 
> ...



Excellent post, needs to be read by all here.


----------



## mograph (Mar 22, 2016)

All those critiquing a video have a responsibility as well -- my post doesn't encourage or excuse personal attacks on forum members.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 22, 2016)

mograph said:


> All those critiquing a video have a responsibility as well -- my post doesn't encourage or excuse personal attacks on forum members.



No, I think that is a good point as well. It is easy to get sucked into personal abuse and it doesn't help make discussion any more productive


----------



## LFJ (Mar 23, 2016)

mograph said:


> That applies to the person who put up the original video: if he can't support the argument made by the video, he should not have put the video up. The person critiquing the video only needs to support his written argument in a written fashion.
> 
> A puts up video.
> B says it's bad.
> ...



This post should be made sticky and added to posting guidelines.


----------



## ShortBridge (Mar 24, 2016)

I post here fairly rarely, largely because I have zero appetite for internet sparring. Nor do I feel the need to promote my training or defend it via keyboard. I am a member because I am naturally curious and know that I can still learn form others and am more than happy to lend perspective where it might be valued.

Unfortunately Wing Chun seems to be more mired in contentiousness than most systems. I think there are a number of contributors to this and I don't think they're going to go away.

Maybe, a fresh thread in the Wing Chun forum about what we each would like to gain from collaborating here would create an outline/agreement for constructive participation vs rehashing behavior that is causing threads to be locked?


----------

