OK, fine.
Let me write here as a long-standing teacher of writing, and tell y'all what the problems are with the logic of these discourses.
First: there're far too many name-calling--what would be called, "ad hominem," (against the man, not the ideas/evidence) attacks. Then, too much denial that one actually lauched a set of insults. Often, too damn many insinuations that the opponent must be gay, or a girl.
Second: there're too many anonymous posters, which means that some folks don't have to take the slightest responsibility for what they write, and can insulate themselves against any look at their actual credentials. Academics try to be honest about this stuff, on the other hand, precisely to keep themselves honest.
Third: far too much refusal to supply facts (or what passes for them in kenpo), and far too much active avoidance of any request for facts or references of any kind.
Fourth. Endless arguments about a) trivia, b) who is the Great Grandfather of Kenpo, c) the politics of kenpo, d) why we shouldn't get into the politics of kenpo.
Fifth: Endless invocations of one's own religious/political/sexual orientation as the only true way to see things, coupled with endless attacks on those, "abnormals," who simply see the world differently. In particular, what we see here are repeated paeans to, say, our economic system, or Christianity, or whatever--and repeated, insistent verbal attacks on anybody who sees the world differently.
Sixth: too much swaggering and dick-waving and bragging about one's fighting skills, disguised especially as claims about, "being realistic," or, "being street-experienced," or whatever.
Seventh: too much jealousy, and far too little open-heartedness. Clyde for example may well be a jerk at times, and he's a bit scary to be on a mat with--and the fact that it is in part the function of advanced students to shake up the rest of us notwithstanding, I'd be rather surprised to find any evidence of Clyde lying, or exaggerating, or inventing credentials and experiences. I'd also be hard-pressed to find any evidence that he isn't simple and straightforward about his ideas.
Eighth: too little knowledge of how to argue and to write. And to read well.
Ninth: too much confusion of opinion with argument.
Tenth: way too much oedipalized discourse, in which the essential question always seems to me something like: "Who's the Father? Can I be the Father now?"
Eleventh: too little respect, and too little knowledge, of the history of martial arts.
Twelfth: too much disguised politicking and advertising. These things are fine, when done openly and acknowledged. Papered over, they lead to all manner of bad writing.
Thirteenth: too little willingness to get close to the mirror, and look for the beam in our own eye, before we worry about the mote in the next guy's.
Fourteenth: too much creation of "straw men," which is to say too much distortion of other people's viewpoints so we have something clear to attack.
Fifteenth: too much uncritical adoption of "progress," as an unequivocal good, so that whatever's latest tends to be what's best.
Sixteenth: too much Taking It All Seriously.
Seventeenth: too little Taking It All Seriously.
Eighteenth: the endless, and unproductive, pursuit of the unsolvable--witness this post.
I see that Clyde's about out of here. Can't wait to read the, "Should Clyde Leave?" poll, a repeat of the "Should Gou Leave?" poll. Personally, I'd argue that these guys come across very, very similarly in their writing. They both should be kept around, to keep us honest.
But I understand pretty darn well why Clyde's about had it. Insults, distortions, attacks on Mr. Tatum, often by folks who won't give their name and who can't spell. Insistence upon reading openheartedness and honesty as simple meanness. Insistences upon attacking one's abilities, or character, or--well, fill in the list.
Personally, I try to stay dispassionate. But I've 'bout had it too--I can't claim that I'm always logical, or informed, or non-partisan, or even polite, but I try.
