Anyone recognize this?

[LFJ]

The forms don't teach direct applications.

----In WSLVT!!!! But we aren't talking about WSLVT here, now are we???

We were actually.

Because you said;

"you always make your system [that would be WSLVT] sound so abstract that it's hard to conceive how it actually works...".

To which I'm replying that it's not hard to conceive at all. It's just that the forms don't teach direct applications, while that might be what you're mistakenly looking for to understand it.

---Like every version of Wing Chun other than WSLVT (at least according to you) it is both concept-based and technique-based. Specific techniques are what make the system distinctly Wing Chun. And those techniques are guided by the concepts behind them as well as the concepts of the strategies and tactics of the system.

You aren't answering the question of how this differs from any other MA.

Sounds pretty meaningless to claim a conceptual base to set your style apart, when what you describe is no different from any other MA.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We were actually.

Because you said;

"you always make your system [that would be WSLVT] sound so abstract that it's hard to conceive how it actually works...".

To which I'm replying that it's not hard to conceive at all. It's just that the forms don't teach direct applications, while that might be what you're mistakenly looking for to understand it.



You aren't answering the question of how this differs from any other MA.

Sounds pretty meaningless to claim a conceptual base to set your style apart, when what you describe is no different from any other MA.

Wait. You are going to ask someone to definitively explain a comment they made and define something about their style? That's rich.

 

[Dylan9d]

Wait. You are going to ask someone to definitively explain a comment they made and define something about their style? That's rich.

I think he should define his own background first before anyone should take him serious......

 

[LFJ]

Wait. You are going to ask someone to definitively explain a comment they made and define something about their style? That's rich.

Some of the most in depth explanations of one's system on this forum have come from me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Some of the most in depth explanations of one's system on this forum have come from me.

As well as some of the most definitive evasions.

 

[LFJ]

As well as some of the most definitive evasions.

I have refused to feed parasites on certain occasions. Not the same thing as evasion.

 

[Dylan9d]

I have refused to feed parasites on certain occasions. Not the same thing as evasion.

So you are a special kind of parasite then

Post your background, it's not that hard to say who trained you and how long, is it?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have refused to feed parasites on certain occasions. Not the same thing as evasion.

You've also refused to define terms, all the while claiming others obviously didn't understand them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you are a special kind of parasite then

Post your background, it's not that hard to say who trained you and how long, is it?

I actually don't have much of a problem with someone who doesn't want to list their instructor. It's not my way, but there are some whose instructors prefer not to be named. And in some styles/cultures, apparently it's not entirely appropriate without the instructor's consent. I'd like to know LFJ's full lineage, as much as I'd like to know anyone's, but it's more a matter of curiosity and trying to connect better with his posts.

 

[LFJ]

You've also refused to define terms, all the while claiming others obviously didn't understand them.

Are you talking about lin-siu-daai-da (LSDD)?

The term was defined, but the person didn't understand what it meant in the context of YMVT.

So?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Are you talking about lin-siu-daai-da (LSDD)?

The term was defined, but the person didn't understand what it meant in the context of YMVT.

So?

That would be a reasonable example. You gave a short definition, rather than an explanation, and only ever told people that what they said wasn't it, without ever explaining. You do that kind of a lot, and it leaves people with no basis upon which to discuss many topics with you. You appear to simply assume your meaning is their meaning, or they are wrong. They give their explanation, and you tell them that's not right. But no counter-explanation, so no real discussion.

 

[LFJ]

You gave a short definition, rather than an explanation, and only ever told people that what they said wasn't it, without ever explaining.

Because that dude was being pretty arrogant and rude, assuming he knew when he didn't, and that I was unaware of basic boxing. He was not actually interested in an explanation.

 

[KPM]

You've also refused to define terms, all the while claiming others obviously didn't understand them.

And he most certainly has been vague and evasive in how he answers things! That whole thread on "Yip Man's Curriculum" and the discussion on whether YMVT was derived entirely from the weapons is a PERFECT example!!! The times he has gone into any kind of detailed explanation, while welcome, are the exception and NOT the rule!

 

[LFJ]

And he most certainly has been vague and evasive in how he answers things! That whole thread on "Yip Man's Curriculum" and the discussion on whether YMVT was derived entirely from the weapons is a PERFECT example!!!

Interesting that NI didn't seem to have the slightest problem understanding what I had to say there.

You were/are just being dishonest about my position.

 

[KPM]

We were actually. Because you said;

"you always make your system [that would be WSLVT] sound so abstract that it's hard to conceive how it actually works...".

To which I'm replying that it's not hard to conceive at all. It's just that the forms don't teach direct applications, while that might be what you're mistakenly looking for to understand it.

---Man, you can really twist and turn things around can't you! Another reason why it is so hard to carry on any kind of reasonable discussion with you! This whole thread has been about the appropriateness and usefulness of practicing a form (in this case the Chum Kiu form) in various ways (in this case on the dummy and with the knives). And the Chum Kiu form being demonstrated and discussed was the TWC Chum Kiu form. That was made very explicit. Then you somehow manage to think you turned it around and made it all about WSLVT????

 

[Dylan9d]

Yup LFJ is a firm believer....

 

[KPM]

Interesting that NI didn't seem to have the slightest problem understanding what I had to say there.

You were/are just being dishonest about my position.

Another load of BS from the BS king!!!!

 

[LFJ]

---Man, you can really twist and turn things around can't you!...

...Then you somehow manage to think you turned it around and made it all about WSLVT????

Was not my doing.

I never mentioned WSLVT. We would not have discussed it if you didn't bring it up.

See:

You always make your system sound so abstract that is hard to conceive how it actually works without really applying any kind of techniques!!!

By "your system" you obviously refer to WSLVT.

Don't want to discuss WSLVT? Don't bring it up.

 

[Dylan9d]

Seriously, did anyone ever thought about quitting WC/VT completly just because of all this bickering.....

I thought Indonesian practitioners were bad.......

 

[KPM]

So just what exactly were you comparing my posts and my videos to and basing your comments upon LFJ???