Taking my own advice, I'll be clarifying myself, even if no one listens:
I read over the thread again to make sure I was not off my nut and I still don't see anything that has been suggested by either party.
None of dmax's posts ever had the feel of veiled accusations. The way he worded his posts did fit the pattern a lot, but not the content of his posts. That is why I made the analysis I did. His first question that started off this branch of discussion was one that was purely out of curiosity/desire-to-find-out. Mistakes were made in interpretation, and the reason used (that there was limited time available) is one of the most common reasons why people develop conditioned responses in the first place. It's nothing bad, but it was something someone on the receiving end might need to have something definite to outline with.
And Xue Sheng wasn't "implying" anything with his repeated points about the changes made to CMC. We're all familiar with Xue Sheng's opinions on CMC Taiji in general, so that's a non-issue.
Now I don't know why my lack of Taiji knowledge continues to come into question when, in this thread anyway (and I would say in other Taiji threads), I have never tried to confirm or deny the facts of the history, philosophy or technique of any style of Taiji. I do not understand why many people feel that my lack of qualifications in Taiji somehow makes me unqualified to clarify misunderstandings that occur between the points people are trying to make and what people are trying to talk about or that I'm unqualified to talk about rationality in thinking. Do I need to be a student of Taiji before I can talk about rationality or to make sense of what people are trying to say?
I have not been analysing anyone, unless the "situation" can qualify as a person. None of my comments have questioned Xue Sheng's opinions of CMC at all, so that question, rhetorical it may be, was a complete surprise.
As for me taking this thread off course, I apologise. Next time I'll just go through the motions of either agreeing or disagreeing like everybody else expects instead of looking at things from another angle. After all, who am I to say that the answer to both side's question is not whether one side is right and the other wrong, but that both sides have misunderstood the other's intentions?
Hanlon's Razor seems to be very useful as of late:
Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by unawareness.
Not that anyone cares, but I'll continue to analyse who or what I like. What I do with that analysis will be used, hopefully without needing to be used publicly. I'll also be continuing to look at things from completely different angles rather than the stock positions of agreeing or disagreeing. This thread was already off course when one side's comments were pigeon-holed into a stock position of disagreement when it in fact was a curiosity that had the makings of a different angle but was unfortunately not recognised due to the kludge that is the intarwebs.
I read over the thread again to make sure I was not off my nut and I still don't see anything that has been suggested by either party.
None of dmax's posts ever had the feel of veiled accusations. The way he worded his posts did fit the pattern a lot, but not the content of his posts. That is why I made the analysis I did. His first question that started off this branch of discussion was one that was purely out of curiosity/desire-to-find-out. Mistakes were made in interpretation, and the reason used (that there was limited time available) is one of the most common reasons why people develop conditioned responses in the first place. It's nothing bad, but it was something someone on the receiving end might need to have something definite to outline with.
And Xue Sheng wasn't "implying" anything with his repeated points about the changes made to CMC. We're all familiar with Xue Sheng's opinions on CMC Taiji in general, so that's a non-issue.
Now I don't know why my lack of Taiji knowledge continues to come into question when, in this thread anyway (and I would say in other Taiji threads), I have never tried to confirm or deny the facts of the history, philosophy or technique of any style of Taiji. I do not understand why many people feel that my lack of qualifications in Taiji somehow makes me unqualified to clarify misunderstandings that occur between the points people are trying to make and what people are trying to talk about or that I'm unqualified to talk about rationality in thinking. Do I need to be a student of Taiji before I can talk about rationality or to make sense of what people are trying to say?
I have not been analysing anyone, unless the "situation" can qualify as a person. None of my comments have questioned Xue Sheng's opinions of CMC at all, so that question, rhetorical it may be, was a complete surprise.
As for me taking this thread off course, I apologise. Next time I'll just go through the motions of either agreeing or disagreeing like everybody else expects instead of looking at things from another angle. After all, who am I to say that the answer to both side's question is not whether one side is right and the other wrong, but that both sides have misunderstood the other's intentions?
Hanlon's Razor seems to be very useful as of late:
Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by unawareness.
Not that anyone cares, but I'll continue to analyse who or what I like. What I do with that analysis will be used, hopefully without needing to be used publicly. I'll also be continuing to look at things from completely different angles rather than the stock positions of agreeing or disagreeing. This thread was already off course when one side's comments were pigeon-holed into a stock position of disagreement when it in fact was a curiosity that had the makings of a different angle but was unfortunately not recognised due to the kludge that is the intarwebs.
