Originally posted by CoolKempoDude
If it is true, what is wrong with me telling the truth ?
Dude:
I personally don't think there is anything wrong with telling the truth. However, even telling the truth will have a consequence and that consequence should be considered before telling such a truth. For example. your anecdote offered at least 3 distinct outcomes and probably more, but these should have occurred to you before you posted:
1. People would jump in and say "Amen, brother! I was there. I see it every night. Amazing isn't it? Who'd have thought."
2.Or "Ha, ha. Very funny Thank you."
3. "What are you talking about. I have known Mr. White for years and I have never heard anything like this. You are trying to start trouble. Someone should put you in your place."
And it appears that several of us opted for 3.
However, there is another underlying issue here that even the New York Times seems to disregard and that is the nature of "Truth."
Once upon a time, a journalist would not consider "reporting" something they could not verify. I think this basic principle used to be at least part of something called "journalistic integrity." I also thinkg that it was common not to intentionally represent fiction as fact.
I mention this only to illustrate that professional reporters used to consider what you were doing as wrong because not only are you not identified to us yourself, but your source is un-verifiable as well. So some of the things that could have irritated people like me on this website are:
1. You are gossiping for the sake of gossiping
2. You are smearing the reputation of a someone who at the very least is considered by many to be among "24 of the Most Prominent American Kenpoists of Today As told to Joe Hyams." As I believe it says on the cover of The Journey.
So what is wrong with your Truth is that by your own admission it may only be a rumor and no one here can check this out directly by verifying either the person who posted it or the person who originated the story.
We could of course call Mr. White and ask him about it, but the story does not merit being treated with that much credibility.
So those are my concerns with the potential outcomes of you telling the truth. You are gossiping and there are a few good examples in history as well as several admonishments in famous books that many of us have read that discourage gossip in general.
Now had you been gossiping about Punxsutawney Phil
http://www.punxsutawneyphil.com/
then maybe no one would have taken much notice. But you did not, you told an unflattering anecdote about a well-regarded Kenpoist and you did so from the shadows of anonymity. I hope this will help you understand why I for one took some exception to this post of yours.
:soapbox:
Now that I'm off my soapbox, let me say that I am not passing judgement on you personally but I hope you can see how you don't come off here in a very good light and I am offering you and others this feedback in the hopes that it will do some good to help avoid misunderstandings in the future.
Now I'll have to go back and look at the topic of this thread again. I'm pretty sure that somewhere Mr. Conatser has posted the approximate dates of the inception/use of the 32, 24 and 16 technique curriculums, but if he would post it here again I would be greatful myself. As well as what preceeded the 32 technique curriculum. As I understand it, it goes like this:
32 technique system, forms up to Short 3 until 196x
32 techniques per belt began 196x
24 techniques per belt introduced in 198x
16 techniques per belt introduced posthumously, never published by Mr. Parker but several seniors were working on them with Mr. Parker who intended to publishing it in the early 1990s, around 1991 or 1992 is my guess.
Wow. I only need about 4 more posts to make it to MartialTalk 3rd Black. I should have broken this up.