# Are you an "Inclusivist" or "Exclusivist" in your view of WC?



## geezer (Jan 24, 2016)

It seems to me that a lot of the disagreements we have on this forum stem not so much from the particular lineage or branch of WC people train, but rather stem from their overall perspective. 

Some folks are by nature _exclusive_ in their viewpoint, they are very devoted to a particular branch or system and value what they do primarily in how it _differs_ from what others do. 

Others have an _inclusive _perspective. Although they may be equally dedicated to their branch, they look for and find _commonalities _between what they do and what other branches of WC, and indeed even between WC and other martial systems.

Your personality and perspective, that is to say whether you are inclusive or exclusive in outlook, will color everything you have to say. In fact it will be hard for _exclusivists_ to even admit that this is ultimately just a matter of opinion! Their outlook leans towards being absolutist, and by nature they tend to view everything more in terms of right or wrong according to whatever measure they accept as authoritative, be it their sifu, their lineage, or perhaps according to what is "proven" in sparring, or competitions and the like. 

The_ inclusivist _tends to be more open to accepting diverse perspectives, and may be less confident that they have the only right answer. They tend to view all approaches as a mix of flawed opinions and universal truths. Basically they are relativists as opposed to the exclusivists who they see as narrow-minded authoritarians.

Understanding your own perspective relative to your audience is crucial if you are to have a meaningful dialogue in person or on this forum. Now, time for the big question: _Which camp would you fall into?_


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 24, 2016)

Ummmm....ok, I'll bite (sort of). I view WC'ers as either "conservatives" or "liberals". I think most of the WC world are conservatives. Whereas, I am a liberal. Not sure which camp that puts me in based on your post...


----------



## KPM (Jan 24, 2016)

I guess I tend to be an "inclusivist."


----------



## Danny T (Jan 24, 2016)

What about those who inclusively exclude all others?

I feel I fall into the inclusive category.


----------



## geezer (Jan 24, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Ummmm....ok, I'll bite (sort of). I view WC'ers as either "conservatives" or "liberals". I think most of the WC world are conservatives. Whereas, I am a liberal. Not sure which camp that puts me in based on your post...



I deliberately avoided the use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" because of their political connotations which could confuse the issue. Although if you consider the term "liberal" in it's broader meaning of being tolerant and open to new ideas, as compared to "conservative" as meaning supportive of tradition, or at least, the status quo, then I suppose these terms would roughly equate, respectively, to "inclusivist" and "exclusivist". This is especially true if you consider that "conservatives" often appeal to authority to justify a position whereas "liberals" tend to question authority even to the point of being iconoclastic.

So, if you define yourself as a WC _liberal,_ I would expect you to be less rigid about lineage and what a particular master says, and more open to relevant ideas regardless of source ...ie an _inclusivist.
_
BTW in my experience, often the most interested and involved members of this forum are "liberals" or inclusivists since 1. Exclusivists wouldn't view this as a place to learn and share since they are dedicated to what they already know, to their sifu and lineage and are satisfied with the answers provided there. And, 2. Exclusivists have to be very careful about what they say since they tend to function and train in an authoritarian culture and risk offending their superiors if they say the wrong thing.

Case in point: How many of the regular, long-term posters here in the WC forum train exclusively under a single "old-school" sifu? A few perhaps, and they (wisely) tend to be taciturn and laconic in their responses.

I know that when I functioned as a "disciple" of my old Chinese sifu, I was very careful about what I said publicly regarding our system, and I had to limit my contact with other WC people. One reason (among many) as to why I eventually drifted away was that I continued to have interests in other MA while my sifu and peers insisted that we already had all the correct answers!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2016)

In the UK we would understand 'liberal' and 'conservative' as being what they traditionally mean and not the connotations America has given to them so it would make, for us, using these words quite suitable for martial arts use. I wouldn't have commented on this section but reading the OP I think it also the problem with the whole site not just one styles part of it. Far too often now we are having posts telling us 'there is only one way and everyone is wrong except me'. Parts of the post and the subsequent one by geezer may just refer to CMA but on the whole it is relevant to all the martial artists who post on MT so thank you for posting geezer. Now I'll pop back in my box and let you debate your specific style interests.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 25, 2016)

Context is important in my analyses on this question.
Exclusive yes, inclusive yes- depends on context.
As  far as understanding the details  of the concepts of wing chun 
both external and internal I would probably fall into the exclusive camp.
In picking up ideas on applications I can be inclusive.
And I am definitely inclusive in respecting kung fu brothers, cousins etc
in a family way.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 25, 2016)

Based on supplied definition...inclusivist


----------



## Phobius (Jan 25, 2016)

Inclusive, I even believe that other martial arts have much of valuable information that may only improve my own understanding of WC.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 26, 2016)

geezer said:


> Some folks are by nature _exclusive_ in their viewpoint, they are very devoted to a particular branch or system and value what they do primarily in how it _differs_ from what others do.
> 
> Others have an _inclusive _perspective. Although they may be equally dedicated to their branch, they look for and find _commonalities _between what they do and what other branches of WC, and indeed even between WC and other martial systems.



I think that extrapolation from beliefs about wing chun to statements about personality and outlook is a big jump to make. 

In terms of even just other MA I have always been in favour of cross training, combining, talking, using what works, sharing info. I have never had a strong allegiance to a particular approach to the exclusion of other approaches. For example I have trained bjj for years but I see the value in several other grappling approaches and have trained different ways seriously- I started judo in my teens and I did wrestling and sub wrestling in my 20s. All of these have influenced the way I approach bjj.

But in wing chun I feel differently because everything else that I have seen is just...so poor in comparison to what I do now. I don't think it is anything to do with my personality really. I think it is to do with the wing chun that I have experienced. I don't say that what I have seen applies to all wing chun, but I feel as if some people on the forum would like me to accept their approach on trust, which to me seems stupid. I need to at least hear about what you do and why before I can give it serious consideration. If it sounds convincing then I will do my best to experience it. But nobody here is interested in convincing anyone else; it is all about pushing relativism and accepting any approach as valid.

In martial arts I guess I accept what works and reject what doesn't. In this sense you might indeed characterise me as having an exclusive perspective, but I feel it would be ridiculous to do so because if MA doesn't work, then what is it? I am not interested in a hobby, or in appearing knowledgeable, or friendship, or anything else. I just want to improve my fighting ability. 



> The_ inclusivist _tends to be more open to accepting diverse perspectives, and may be less confident that they have the only right answer. They tend to view all approaches as a mix of flawed opinions and universal truths. Basically they are relativists as opposed to the exclusivists who they see as narrow-minded authoritarians. Understanding your own perspective relative to your audience is crucial if you are to have a meaningful dialogue in person or on this forum. Now, time for the big question: _Which camp would you fall into?_



When it comes to martial arts I would characterise myself as a realist more than anything else. I think the choice being presented here is a false one- people can be other than one of these two options.


----------



## geezer (Jan 26, 2016)

guy b. said:


> ...When it comes to martial arts I would characterise myself as _*a realist *_more than anything else. I think the choice being presented here is a false one- *people can be other than one of these two options*.



I would agree with the statement quoted above. No pigeon holing.


----------



## mograph (Jan 26, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I think the choice being presented here is a false one- people can be other than one of these two options.


Cognitive scientists would agree, suggesting that the most adaptive approach is a mix of convergent and divergent thinking, appropriate to the context at the time.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 27, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I need to at least hear about what you do and why before I can give it serious consideration. If it sounds convincing then I will do my best to experience it. But nobody here is interested in convincing anyone else; it is all about pushing relativism and accepting any approach as valid.



That's the feeling I get as well. Plenty of group hugging hippies. Not many healthy skeptics.



> In martial arts I guess I accept what works and reject what doesn't. In this sense you might indeed characterise me as having an exclusive perspective, but I feel it would be ridiculous to do so because if MA doesn't work, then what is it? I am not interested in a hobby, or in appearing knowledgeable, or friendship, or anything else. I just want to improve my fighting ability.



Agreed. It's as if some people want to avoid being labeled "exclusivist" because it sounds negative. It just sounds practical to me from a standpoint of caring about what actually works.


----------



## geezer (Jan 27, 2016)

QUOTE="LFJ, post: 1744190, member: 32866"]That's the feeling I get as well. Plenty of group hugging hippies. Not many healthy skeptics.[/QUOTE]

I'm actually pretty skeptical about a lot of things.




For example, I'm a bit skeptical of some of the claims certain chunners make regarding the superiority of their system over all others.

As far as being a Hippie, naw.... although I am old enough to remember when the right wing would diss anybody they didn't agree with by labeling them as such. Seems the same is still true for the WC right wing!


----------



## guy b. (Jan 27, 2016)

geezer said:


> For example, I'm a bit skeptical of some of the claims certain chunners make regarding the superiority of their system over all others.



But don't you see? This is a reaction informed by your "group hugging hippie" beliefs. You appear to be offended by anyone that takes a non relativist approach to martial arts. Your reaction is not the reaction of a skeptic who judges systems, ideas, claims and so on individually and critically based upon their value measured in some real way. Non relativism appears to be what offends you most. 

I would argue that relativism is a useless guide in fighting. It will only get you hurt.



> I am old enough to remember when the right wing would diss anybody they didn't agree with by labeling them as such. Seems the same is still true for the WC right wing!



I guess euphemisms like "group hugging hippie" are a way for people not to get _too_ offended. Like the way KPM gets offended when real terms are used. But why get annoyed about a bit of euphemism when this whole thread is basically an attack on the man rather than the argument? Exclusivist..._right wing_? Lol!

Why is it wrong to discriminate between MA systems on the basis of effectiveness, coherence, simplicity, directness, or any other criteria?


----------



## geezer (Jan 27, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Why is it wrong to discriminate between MA systems on the basis of effectiveness, coherence, simplicity, directness, or any other criteria?



I have no problem with people discriminating between what works and what doesn't. I do myself, and it definitely colors the arts I train. However, I certainly don't make such judgements based on what strangers post on this forum.

I have learned a few things from my conversations here, but I mostly hang out here for fun. And I certainly try not to be rude, trollish, or engage in "fraud-busting" other styles or instructors. That is totally contrary to our forum rules and gets people banned. Better to be respectful and enjoy the community. Sorry if that's hippie talk.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 27, 2016)

geezer said:


> I certainly don't make such judgements based on what strangers post on this forum.



Aren't you making character judgements in this thread based upon what strangers post on the forum?


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 27, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You appear to be offended by anyone that takes a non relativist approach to martial arts. Your reaction is not the reaction of a skeptic who judges systems, ideas, claims and so on individually and critically based upon their value measured in some real way.



Call me crazy (or psychic)...but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that some folks get upset when some practitioners of a particular lineage (guess who ) incessantly state that others' WC is:
- wrong
- inefficient
- incorrect
- not VT thinking
- _fill in the rest with other elitist language..._

This lineage-specific elitism ruined that other forum...just sayin.

*having said the above...in my defense...it's late and I've been drinking. hahaha


----------



## KPM (Jan 27, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Like the way KPM gets offended when real terms are used. ?



Just what the heck are you talking about now Guy??  Your shoes are squishing!!!


----------



## KPM (Jan 27, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Call me crazy (or psychic)...but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that some folks get upset when some practitioners of a particular lineage (guess who ) incessantly state that others' WC is:
> - wrong
> - inefficient
> - incorrect
> ...



Yes, this!  Absolutely!   You're not crazy or psychic.  Just common sense, which a few people here fail to see despite it being pointed out to them on multiple occasions.....and not just by me!!!


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Jan 27, 2016)

I think I am mostly inclusive. I mostly relate better to wing chun that I see that has good forward pressure etc for building force awareness and stuff. But at times I will look at clips of people who do not seem to utilise this but obviously have some good technical skill. At those times, I think it would be good to learn a little of what they know. There are also people who are really good at putting things in a fighting context and those people would also be good to learn from.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 27, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Call me crazy (or psychic)...but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that some folks get upset when some practitioners of a particular lineage (guess who ) incessantly state that others' WC is:
> - wrong
> - inefficient
> - incorrect
> ...



That's nothing to get upset about, especially if it isn't true! 

Rather than cry about it and take things personally, people should defend their methods with logical arguments. Explain exactly how those critiques are invalid or misplaced.

If they can't do that, either the critiques are indeed valid, or they just don't care about the system they train.

Personally, I would love to have things like that pointed out to me so I could consider them and possibly learn something. Or I would explain why they are invalid... but get upset about it? Never. That's a bit too man-child, don't you think?


----------



## Marnetmar (Jan 27, 2016)

I'd say I'm somewhere in the middle, for the most part. I tend to look at the things other people do and ask myself if it seems like it's practical in a realistic scenario. If it seems practical and fills a hole in my training, I'll adopt it. If it's not, I discard it.

That said, I do have a few very blunt exclusivist opinions, but I tend to keep them to myself so as not to start politics.


----------



## mograph (Jan 28, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Rather than cry about it and take things personally, people should defend their methods with logical arguments. Explain exactly how those critiques are invalid or misplaced.


Then first, the initial critiques or claims of fact/value/policy need to be evidence-based, logical arguments.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 28, 2016)

mograph said:


> Then first, the initial critiques or claims of fact/value/policy need to be evidence-based, logical arguments.



I agree.

And if people think they are not, they need to show how they are illogical or not evidence-based. 

In any case, don't just cower away and cry about it. That's very unbecoming behavior for an adult martial artists visiting an internet forum.


----------



## mograph (Jan 28, 2016)

LFJ, we also need to be skeptical of our own biases.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 28, 2016)

We're in agreement once more, mograph.

WSL once said; "_Combat experience is more important than any other thing._"

He passed away 19 years ago today, by the way. 

R.I.P. WSL.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 28, 2016)

mograph said:


> LFJ, we also need to be skeptical of our own biases.



I agree, never stop testing


----------



## geezer (Jan 28, 2016)

LFJ said:


> ...Personally, I would love to have things like that pointed out to me so I could consider them and possibly learn something. Or I would explain why they are invalid... but get upset about it?



Honestly, pointing things out in words on a _forum _is hardly convincing to anybody, least of all people whose minds are made up. The best advice is to point out possible problems with another's approach and suggest some methods of _testing _the problem.

I believe you or Guy (I forget which) made such a reference over on the _WSL and Tan Sau_ thread, suggesting that charging into a round-punch with _tan-da_ a la David Peterson wouldn't work and could be tested by gearing up and working with some decent, non-compliant punchers. Now that's solid advice. Let people test it themselves. Good ol' scientific method. State problem, propose hypothesis, devise  and conduct an experiment to test hypothesis, gather and analyze the data and report conclusion.

Words on a forum, by contrast, convince nobody. And being rude and insulting actually turns people against you. Let's go with persuasion and testing. "Trust but verify".


----------



## LFJ (Jan 29, 2016)

geezer said:


> Honestly, pointing things out in words on a _forum _is hardly convincing to anybody, least of all people whose minds are made up. The best advice is to point out possible problems with another's approach and suggest some methods of _testing _the problem.



Well, in some cases it's just that certain tactics or strategies are indirect and inefficient, but _not necessarily_ ineffective.

Degree of directness and efficiency can be logically analyzed by just looking closely at movements.

If one values directness and efficiency, being a VT fighter, they should be able and willing to acknowledge where some movements may be indirect or inefficient. 

That's step one. Then they must be willing to seek out a more direct and efficient method if they want to improve their VT.

Otherwise, even if they are shown a more direct and efficient method, they may still believe their method is equally valid and not be willing to change. So, step one is to logically deconstruct their current method.


----------



## Phobius (Jan 29, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Well, in some cases it's just that certain tactics or strategies are indirect and inefficient, but _not necessarily_ ineffective.
> 
> Degree of directness and efficiency can be logically analyzed by just looking closely at movements.
> 
> ...



You believe a method can be analyzed simply by looking at it without a proper description or even feeling it, from for instance YouTube? Ever wondered if such an approach is flawed because such a view would only cause you to compare it towards your current understanding of how it must be?

How can a deconstruct of a method purely from visual input lead you to not question all methods that are not identical to your own? After all if you wouldn't your own approach would be flawed.

My approach is always to see a method, trying to understand what is the reason behind it and the core of the method itself. Deconstruct is what I do but not to question but rather understand. Once I believe I understand I validate my readings and start see if I can pinpoint some flaws. I breach those flaws to the person in question and read his response as I might have to revalidate my understanding of the technique.

Meaning I will not understand a method or technique until after I have had that conversation. Before then all my comments are simply unproven theories because frankly I would have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.

You may be different and can understand everything from first blimp, it just wont work like that for me. And dont get me started on understanding a technique from simple text, or heck even pictures. A picture should say more than a 1000 words, for martial arts it doesnt say crap. A guy should never stand still so why does he on that picture?


----------



## LFJ (Jan 29, 2016)

"Looking closely" doesn't mean with just one's eyes.


----------



## Phobius (Jan 29, 2016)

LFJ said:


> "Looking closely" doesn't mean with just one's eyes.



What else do you have on a forum? A brain yes but as input I mean. Your eyes and fingers. Was about to say neither helps very much but eyes are good for reading.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 29, 2016)

Phobius said:


> What else do you have on a forum?



I'm talking about examining what _you_ do in _your own_ training (lines, number of tools, steps, etc.) to determine its degree of directness and efficiency, with written critiques in mind.


----------



## geezer (Jan 29, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I'm talking about examining what _you_ do in _your own_ training (lines, number of tools, steps, etc.) to determine its degree of directness and efficiency, with written critiques in mind.



This is good advice, but I'm like _Phobius_. I can only get so much from a forum, from a picture, or even a video. I learn so much better working with people physically, and then carefully mulling over what we did.

You made a good point earlier contrasting _efficiency_ with _effectiveness_. One can be a component of the other, but they are separate things.

Martial arts in general demands _effectiveness _i.e. "getting the job done". WC specifically focuses on _efficiency,_ but efficiency in the martial arts can mean a lot of different things. In a general sense it refers to "getting the job done for the least input" or "the most bang for your buck". But what does that really mean? There is the efficiency of _time_, of _movement_, of _energy_, ...even the efficiency of_ training methods_.  Each means something very different. Some are even at odds with each other. And all are part of WC, but the emphasis on each varies between lineages and branches.

This, in itself, might be worth exploring on another thread. It might even help people here understand the perspectives of others better. Worth a try.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 29, 2016)

geezer said:


> Honestly, pointing things out in words on a _forum _is hardly convincing to anybody, least of all people whose minds are made up. The best advice is to point out possible problems with another's approach and suggest some methods of _testing _the problem.



I have had some of my best moments of inspiration about bjj through discussion on forums. Why should wing chun be different?


----------



## geezer (Jan 29, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I have had some of my best moments of inspiration about bjj through discussion on forums. *Why should wing chun be different*



_Right_. It shouldn't be!

  ...But the way some of these threads have been going, it's not! That is it's not a friendly exchange of ideas anymore ...it's one party who fancies themselves as always right lecturing, even berating and sniping at the others. People respond in kind and next thing you know we've got a forum war going on. *Let's not*.[/QUOTE]


----------



## guy b. (Jan 29, 2016)

geezer said:


> _Right_. It shouldn't be!
> 
> ...But the way some of these threads have been going, it's not! That is it's not a friendly exchange of ideas anymore ...it's one party who fancies themselves as always right lecturing, even berating and sniping at the others. People respond in kind and next thing you know we've got a forum war going on. *Let's not*.



I don't want any kind of forum war but I don't see it the way you describe. I certainly don't believe I am always right and I think it unlikely that LFJ believes this. The only issue I have on this forum is with people who are not honest in their arguments. This is a small number of people or persons singular. Address that and you may solve any forum issues that you see arising.


----------



## geezer (Jan 29, 2016)

No, it really isn't up to _me_ to fix things, it has to be a _collective effort_. And frankly, I haven't met anybody currently on this forum who showed reason to be called "dishonest", a "coward", or a  "lying parasite" ...as one member has been. Actually, I think I was included in that "dishonest" thing, but I'm used to abuse. I teach high school for a living. 

Regardless, the point is that we need to drop the abusive epithets, and if necessary, just ignore forum members who we can't agree with and get on with meaningful discussions. If you can't do that, you may find that your welcome here has run out. I'm just passing along a polite suggestion based on things I hear. And, for the record, _I'm being honest!  _


----------



## guy b. (Jan 29, 2016)

geezer said:


> I haven't met anybody currently on this forum who showed reason to be called "dishonest", a "coward", or a "lying parasite"



Please honestly and without bias check posts by that member again. Assembling what has been said in terms of a coherent response on the forum seems beyond that person. It is difficult to come up with a reason for this beyond intentional misrepresentation, which is indeed a form of dishonestly. But then maybe he has dementia, or is mentally ill, or is depressed? I just don't know. Whatever the reason, I feel you should address it publicly, as you feel the need to address the issue of what you find to be insulting language publicly. This would be a fair way to deal with any perceived problems for both parties in this particular disagreement. Lying is after all more an issue of trolling than any angry response because it is an attempt to intentionally stoke disagreement. 

Alternatively you could stop trying to be the self appointed forum police and just allow arguments to play out since we are all adults and words don't actually hurt anyone. I don't mind arguing with (PC edit; apparently dishonest people who may in fact have an honest excuse for their apparent behaviour). You could in fact just leave me to it.


----------



## geezer (Jan 29, 2016)

guy b. said:


> ...you could stop trying to be the self appointed forum police and just allow arguments to play out since we are all adults and words don't actually hurt anyone. I don't mind arguing with (PC edit; apparently dishonest people who may in fact have an honest excuse for their apparent behaviour). You could in fact* just leave me to it*.



Dude. I just tried to give you some friendly advice. Take it, or don't. I'm done.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 29, 2016)

geezer said:


> Dude. I just tried to give you some friendly advice. Take it, or don't. I'm done.



I thought it was more like a warning. 

If you want to dish such advice out and act upon t in terms of reporting perceived offences to moderators then please at least be equal handed. Or don't do it. Just some friendly advice, but then I'm not trying to get anyone banned, am I?


----------



## Phobius (Jan 29, 2016)

I am fairly certain he is being equal from a point in time moving forward.

Besides it wont matter, any moderator would take a look at the reported thread as a whole and make his/her own judgement in terms of fairness.


----------



## yak sao (Jan 29, 2016)

Gotta say I'm really missing the good ol' days here on the WC forum when we were all deluded into thinking we actually knew what we were doing and were happy as clams wallowing in our collective ignorance.


----------



## geezer (Jan 29, 2016)

Ah, the good 'ol days.

http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12471013.jpg


----------



## KPM (Jan 30, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I feel you should address it publicly, as you feel the need to address the issue of what you find to be insulting language publicly. This would be a fair way to deal with any perceived problems for both parties in this particular disagreement. Lying is after all more an issue of trolling than any angry response because it is an attempt to intentionally stoke disagreement.
> .



I should just ignore this...and you.  But really, let's do address this since you continue to fling these accusations at me.   Just where do you think I have lied or been dishonest to anyone?   You have gotten away with calling me a troll, and a liar, and a coward and have insulted me on numerous occasions.  Moderators have done nothing.  So just how do you think I have been dishonest with anyone?  The one case where I said I agree with LJF and you said I was lying because I didn't really agree...I pointed out exactly WHY I said I agreed and wasn't lying about anything.  So either drop the ridiculousness, leave the forum, or point out exactly how I've lied about anything.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 30, 2016)

Well, KPM, where I think you've been less than honest, it has been with yourself more than anything, so...

An example, you _did _say we dismissed your evidence for a suggested connection between White Crane and Wing Chun "_out of hand_"... which is just not true. 

And you knew it wasn't true because you followed us for several pages where we gave reasons for not accepting your evidence, with detailed explanations, pictures, videos, and quotes from historians in building our side of the debate.

Saying we just dismissed your stuff out of hand really undermines the effort we put into the discussion on that topic. It's just that we didn't agree with you in the final analysis, and you couldn't accept that, so you reduced it to "out of hand" rejection, which is clearly dishonest.


----------



## geezer (Jan 30, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Well, KPM, where I think you've been less than honest, it has been with yourself more than anything...
> 
> Saying we just dismissed your stuff out of hand really undermines the effort we put into the discussion on that topic. It's just that we didn't agree with you in the final analysis, and you couldn't accept that, so you reduced it to "out of hand" rejection, which is clearly dishonest.



LFJ, I get it. You were simply expressing your point of view on the subject, saying that you don't think KPM was being honest with himself, nor was he accurately describing the situation. _That's fine_. I disagree, but have no objection to your opinion or your wording. People have strongly differing views which color their perceptions. But that doesn't justify the use of epithets like "liar", "coward", "lying parasite" and some of the other stuff people started throwing around. If people want to rant like that, there are other forums where that stuff is the norm. _Not here_.

Now let's move on.


----------



## KPM (Jan 30, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Well, KPM, where I think you've been less than honest, it has been with yourself more than anything, so...
> 
> An example, you _did _say we dismissed your evidence for a suggested connection between White Crane and Wing Chun "_out of hand_"... which is just not true.
> 
> ...



No.  I disagree.  What I said was that you cannot just dismiss what I said, because what I presented were facts.  You may not agree that those facts suggest real connections, and I said that.  But you cannot deny that those facts actually exist....which you did, which is "dismissing them out of hand."  You can present arguments and reasons for not accepting that the evidence is enough to show an actual connection between White Crane and Wing Chun, but you cannot deny that the evidence actually exists.  THAT is what I said you were "dismissing out of hand."   I wasn't being dishonest with anyone, including myself.  And disagreeing in an argument/discussion is a far cry from lying or being dishonest or being a coward or any number of other things you accused me off.  Besides...you were all about how everyone needed to essentially grow up and tolerate the BS behavior coming from you and Guy.  And yet you take such major offense at me saying that you dismissed something "out of hand"????     That actually offended you enough for you to call me a "lying parasite"??


----------



## geezer (Jan 30, 2016)

KPM said:


> That actually offended you enough for you to call me a "lying parasite"??



You'd prefer to be called a "truthful parasite"? . I didn't think so. So_* just let it go!*_  You've stated your position numerous times with total clarity. If certain people are unable to accept what you've previously posted, why do you think they will suddenly develop vastly improved reading comprehension now?  

....moving on....


----------



## KPM (Jan 30, 2016)

^^^^Good point!


----------



## Phobius (Jan 30, 2016)

KPM said:


> No.  I disagree.  What I said was that you cannot just dismiss what I said, because what I presented were facts.  You may not agree that those facts suggest real connections, and I said that.  But you cannot deny that those facts actually exist....which you did, which is "dismissing them out of hand."  You can present arguments and reasons for not accepting that the evidence is enough to show an actual connection between White Crane and Wing Chun, but you cannot deny that the evidence actually exists.  THAT is what I said you were "dismissing out of hand."   I wasn't being dishonest with anyone, including myself.  And disagreeing in an argument/discussion is a far cry from lying or being dishonest or being a coward or any number of other things you accused me off.  Besides...you were all about how everyone needed to essentially grow up and tolerate the BS behavior coming from you and Guy.  And yet you take such major offense at me saying that you dismissed something "out of hand"????     That actually offended you enough for you to call me a "lying parasite"??



Just a sidenote, please avoid using words such as facts and evidence in regards to WC history. I know you mean it is your own opinion and LFJ as well as guy write this way all the time which can annoy me. Facts and evidence probably dont exist anymore, even though I would have wanted to figure it out.

Then again, my inclusivist nature thinks that our art is better now than it ever has been before. One evidence of such a thing is BJJ and how it has caused a lot of schools to incorporate groundwork teachings not in order to use instead of WC but also to teach students how and why to attack a certain way as to make their drills more realistic.

Also we are eager to share and mix knowledge, which previously was individualized. Each had their own understanding, but now through internet all of it is brought out into the open.


----------



## KPM (Jan 30, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Just a sidenote, please avoid using words such as facts and evidence in regards to WC history. .



No, Phobius.  That was kind of my point.  The stories themselves may not be factual, but what is a fact is that the stories exist!  You cannot simply dismiss them as if they didn't exist!   I was referring to the following facts, for example:

1.  Both White Crane and Wing Chun share nearly the same origin stories.  That is a fact.
2.  Fukien White Crane looks very similar to Wing Chun (at least mainland China versions) to many people.  That is a fact.
3.  People from both the Wing Chun side and the White Crane side have theorized that he two are connected for many years now.  That is a fact. 
4.  Early Wing Chun and an early form of White Crane were found amongst the Red Boat performers at the same time in history.  That is a fact.

Etc.

I'm NOT claiming that the various origin stories and legends in circulation are factual.  And I've said multiple times now that anyone is free to see those facts as suggesting an actual connection of some sort between White Crane and Wing Chun....or not!  But you can't claim that these facts don't exist.  That was my point.  I haven't lied or been dishonest about anything.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 31, 2016)

KPM said:


> And yet you take such major offense at me saying that you dismissed something "out of hand"????     That actually offended you enough for you to call me a "lying parasite"??



You presented these "facts" as "evidence".

It's also a fact there are many people who theorize that Earth is only 6k years old and have stories about it. 

I'm not claiming these people and their stories don't exist, but I'm not accepting them as accurate or evidence for Earth being 6k years old.

If despite me building a scientifically based argument to the contrary, a Young Earther were to say I dismissed their "facts" and "evidence" out of hand, I would not be offended. I'd only find it humorous.

And you know full well the coward and lying parasite comments did not come from that topic. But let's leave that in the past, lest you and the mods get more sand (PC edit: _content removed_).


----------



## guy b. (Jan 31, 2016)

KPM said:


> No, Phobius.  That was kind of my point.  The stories themselves may not be factual, but what is a fact is that the stories exist!  You cannot simply dismiss them as if they didn't exist!



Nobody is dismissing them as if they don't exist. They were dismissed on the basis that they were untrue or extremely unlikely.   



> 1.  Both White Crane and Wing Chun share nearly the same origin stories.  That is a fact.



So do many southern chinese MA. These were inserted in the early 20th C. See Judkins



> 2.  Fukien White Crane looks very similar to Wing Chun (at least mainland China versions) to many people.  That is a fact.



It only looks similar on the basis of superficial hand movements. In any meaningful way it is quite dissimilar. Discussed ad nauseam



> 3.  People from both the Wing Chun side and the White Crane side have theorized that he two are connected for many years now.  That is a fact.



This is an argument from popularity, a fallacious type of argument



> 4.  Early Wing Chun and an early form of White Crane were found amongst the Red Boat performers at the same time in history.  That is a fact.



Evidence?



> But you can't claim that these facts don't exist.  That was my point.



The arguments presented in these statements are not facts. The only fact is that such statements have been made by you and sometimes other people



> I haven't lied or been dishonest about anything.



Ignoring counter arguments and misrepresenting what people have said is dishonest, provided it was done intentionally. If not (maybe you just have a poor memory), then you have my condolences.


----------



## KPM (Jan 31, 2016)

You presented these "facts" as "evidence".

---Yes.  These facts represent evidence of a connection between Wing Chun and White Crane.  Why is that so hard to understand?  And....I will say again.....you can accept that this is enough to theorize a connection between the two arts or not.  But you cannot pretend that those facts don't exist.

It's also a fact there are many people who theorize that Earth is only 6k years old and have stories about it.

----But there is strong scientific evidence to the contrary.

If despite me building a scientifically based argument to the contrary, a Young Earther were to say I dismissed their "facts" and "evidence" out of hand, I would not be offended. I'd only find it humorous.

----And you have never presented any "strong scientific evidence" to negate the theory that White Crane and Wing Chun are connected.  So your example is totally out of context.   Your argument to negate the theory was no more convincing that the argument to accept the theory. It certainly wasn't as definitive as you seem to think it was! 

And you know full well the coward and lying parasite comments did not come from that topic.

----No I don't!  I asked when you thought I had lied about anything and that was the example YOU came up with!

But let's leave that in the past, lest you and the mods get more sand (PC edit: _content removed_).

----Oh!  Is that a taunt aimed at the moderators to get them to actually do something about your BS?

---And I am NOT here to reargue that debate.   I was simply pointing out that in that particular discussion I was not being dishonest about anything as I was accused.  Its time to drop that and move on.


----------



## KPM (Jan 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> The arguments presented in these statements are not facts. The only fact is that such statements have been made by you and sometimes other people
> 
> 
> .



And see, this is exactly what I was talking about!  They ARE facts.  They exist!  White Crane and Wing Chun do in fact have very similar origin stories, etc.  To say that these are not facts is to "dismiss them out of hand."  Guy has just proven my point.  Case closed.   Now shut up and move on!


----------



## KPM (Jan 31, 2016)

geezer said:


> You'd prefer to be called a "truthful parasite"? . I didn't think so. So_* just let it go!*_  You've stated your position numerous times with total clarity. If certain people are unable to accept what you've previously posted, why do you think they will suddenly develop vastly improved reading comprehension now?
> 
> ....moving on....



Yep.  It seems a couple of people are STILL having problems with reading comprehension!   And one has now made a taunting comment about the moderators not doing anything.  And the other has once again called me a liar.  Time to move on.  I will try, but I can't promise I will continue to tolerate this same BS from these two.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 31, 2016)

KPM said:


> ----And you have never presented any "strong scientific evidence" to negate the theory that White Crane and Wing Chun are connected.



Actually, guy b. and I both went into detail analyzing similarities and differences in physical movement and methods (which was apparently over your head), and quoted historians on what is more likely factual history than the fiction you appealed to.



> ----No I don't!  I asked when you thought I had lied about anything and that was the example YOU came up with!



Just one of many, and one that was blatant and obvious to anyone reading it.


----------



## KPM (Jan 31, 2016)

^^^^^You are wrong.  And you are pretty pathetic.  Let it go.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 31, 2016)

KPM said:


> And see, this is exactly what I was talking about!  They ARE facts.  They exist!  White Crane and Wing Chun do in fact have very similar origin stories, etc.  To say that these are not facts is to "dismiss them out of hand."  Guy has just proven my point.  Case closed.   Now shut up and move on!



Again this is a dishonest misrepresentation of the argument

Nobody is denying that origin stories exist or that similarities between these stories exist. You appear to be trying to conflate the fact that stories exist with the "fact" that they are true. 

Mythical origin stories do exist. But they were added in the 20th C. Any similarities are therefore irrelevant in terms of the origins of wing chun. See Judkins for details.


----------



## KPM (Jan 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Again this is a dishonest misrepresentation of the argument
> 
> _Nobody is denying that origin stories exist or that similarities between these stories exist_. You appear to be trying to conflate the fact that stories exist with the "fact" that they are true.
> .



Now YOU are the one being dishonest!  You said this just a few posts ago in this very thread!

_guy b. said: __↑__ 
The arguments presented in these statements are not facts. The only fact is that such statements have been made by you and sometimes other people_

All I ever said was that it is a fact that these things exist.  Anyone is free to believe that they suggest a relationship or not.  How many times now have I said that?   Now  shut up and move on!


----------



## LFJ (Jan 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You appear to be trying to conflate the fact that stories exist with the "fact" that they are true.



More like the "fact" that they are "evidence" for the theory, when really they are just evidence _of_ the theory.

I don't agree they are admissible as evidence for the theory. Just like young earth stories aren't grounds for justified belief that the Earth is only 6k years old.


----------



## geezer (Jan 31, 2016)

Old argument, people. Learn to accept that people will see things differently and move on.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 31, 2016)

KPM said:


> All I ever said was that it is a fact that these things exist.  Anyone is free to believe that they suggest a relationship or not.  How many times now have I said that?



I agree that origin stories exist and are easily discounted as evidence for any similarity between white crane and wing chun.


----------



## geezer (Jan 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I agree that origin stories exist and are easily discounted as evidence for any similarity between white crane and wing chun.


Off topic.


----------



## geezer (Jan 31, 2016)

As a side note, since the topic of "origin stories" and legendary histories popped up again, a lot of the folklore associated with kung-fu styles was created or adopted to back up "exclusivist" claims of stylistic superiority. Basically early attempts at branding and marketing, something that is increasingly widespread in modern times in WC. How many sifus have claimed to have the "authentic", or the "final", or the "most effective" WC/VT? Probably _most _try to play that game.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 31, 2016)

geezer said:


> Off topic.



What is the topic?


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> What is the topic?



See post #1


----------



## geezer (Jan 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> What is the topic?



Precisely my point! Scroll up to the top of the page and read the thread title please.


----------



## wtxs (Feb 2, 2016)

geezer said:


> As a side note, since the topic of "origin stories" and legendary histories popped up again, a lot of the folklore associated with kung-fu styles was created or adopted to back up "exclusivist" claims of stylistic superiority. Basically early attempts at branding and marketing, something that is increasingly widespread in modern times in WC. How many sifus have claimed to have the "authentic", or the "final", or the "most effective" WC/VT? Probably _most _try to play that game.



IMO my WC way is most effective, so are you suggesting that I a liar?  I will not upload an video for all to see, cus it will leave evidence of the hidden deadly techniques of my lineage.


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 2, 2016)

wtxs said:


> IMO my WC way is most effective, so are you suggesting that I a liar?  I will not upload an video for all to see, cus it will leave evidence of the hidden deadly techniques of my lineage.


--------------------------------------------------

VBG. Some secrets should be kept.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 2, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> VBG. Some secrets should be kept.



Yes, some need to be kept until trust is established


----------



## dudewingchun (Feb 2, 2016)

Everyone knows its Emei 12 zhuang and Yong Chun White crane !


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 2, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Yes, some need to be kept until trust is established


------------------------------------------
???!!!!!
I was just joking with a different poster


----------



## guy b. (Feb 2, 2016)

I 


Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------
> ???!!!!!
> I was just joking with a different poster



I am serious. There are things I would not say here, especially given entrenched antipathy which has developed among some people.

Odd that you say you were joking, given actions


----------



## geezer (Feb 2, 2016)

guy b. said:


> ....especially given *entrenched antipathy...*



Got to hand it to you, Guy. You do express yourself well with the written word. Now if only we could do something about that ...er... _mutual antipathy_ that sometimes erupts between you and LFJ on one side and some of the rest of us on the other... we could really have some great discussions.

I know, for a start, never say _anything _to KPM and, hopefully he will respond in kind!


----------



## guy b. (Feb 3, 2016)

geezer said:


> Got to hand it to you, Guy. You do express yourself well with the written word. Now if only we could do something about that ...er... _mutual antipathy_ that sometimes erupts between you and LFJ on one side and some of the rest of us on the other... we could really have some great discussions.



Thanks. You express yourself well too



> I know, for a start, never say _anything _to KPM and, hopefully he will respond in kind!



Sorry, too late.


----------

