The Social Position as "Martial Artist"

To know thy selves... to know thy opponent
I would say it's a benefit if no one has seen your style, seen you fight, or know of your injuries.

suntzu.jpg
Just FYI, this thread is 13 years old, and most of the posters have moved on.
 
The Social Position as "Martial Artist"

Help the good to fight against the evil.


One MA person may save all those passengers lives on that bus.

 
Last edited:
I think I'm the only poster, of that group who posted 13 years ago, that is still here. And at least one of those posters has passed away.
Yeah, I saw some who were here when I started, but I don't think any of them have been on in a while.
 
But it's not a bad thread.

I think the longer you're in the Arts, especially if your school has been a fixture somewhere, there are social ties. Hopefully, all good.
 
Fight for freedom is evil?
he was tried and executed for amongst other things the slaughter of innocent civilians, including women and children, not really a nice man at all. and it's unlikely he looked like mel Gibson

I love it when peoples only knowledge of history is Hollywood, it's like they believe any old rubbish
 
he was tried and executed for amongst other things the slaughter of innocent civilians, including women and children, not really a nice man at all. and it's unlikely he looked like mel Gibson

I love it when peoples only knowledge of history is Hollywood, it's like they believe any old rubbish

Plenty of Scots might disagree with your assessment of Wallace and the history involved. Instead of being mere "other things," the primary reason he was pursued over a period of years and brought to trial, convicted and executed, was because he was considered a traitor to the crown. Edward I "subdued" Wales, sought to conquer Scotland (hence Wallace's "traitorous" actions), and war in France. He seems like a swell guy by comparison. "One man's freedom fighter" and all that, right? Since you're apt to accuse me of falling for "Hollywood fiction," I'll just toss out a quick source:

Edward I | Biography, Reign, Reforms, Wars, & Facts
William Wallace | Biography & Facts

"britannica," that's British, right?
 
Plenty of Scots might disagree with your assessment of Wallace and the history involved. Instead of being mere "other things," the primary reason he was pursued over a period of years and brought to trial, convicted and executed, was because he was considered a traitor to the crown. Edward I "subdued" Wales, sought to conquer Scotland (hence Wallace's "traitorous" actions), and war in France. He seems like a swell guy by comparison. "One man's freedom fighter" and all that, right? Since you're apt to accuse me of falling for "Hollywood fiction," I'll just toss out a quick source:

Edward I | Biography, Reign, Reforms, Wars, & Facts
William Wallace | Biography & Facts

"britannica," that's British, right?
your fact sheet on Wallace seems to be short of facts, particularly the atrocities he was reasonable for,

pointing out that good kind Edward was kingdom building doesn't detract from the actions of brave heart, I could quite easily refere you to the American Mexico war, as a comparable exercise in taking land of a rival country by armed intervention. are we citing president Polk as a war criminal or even considering given back Texas to its rightful owners, no thought not, what about the land grab of the from the native American, was that better than king Edward's invading Scotland, Wales and France

the Scottish invaded England on multiple occasions just to even things up and bizarrely Panama, which bankrupted them, requiring that they had to beg England to take them over or they would all starve, which is how Britain come into 3xistanc3 as a political entity

the Scottish like the Americans are generally delusional about their own history

nb its Scottish not Scots, the Scots were a particular tribe in the Roman era
 
Last edited:
your fact sheet on Wallace seems to be short of facts, particularly the atrocities he was reasonable for,

pointing out that good kind Edward was kingdom building doesn't detract from the actions of brave heart, I could quite easily refere you to the American Mexico war, as a comparable exercise in taking land of a rival country by armed intervention. are we citing president Polk as a war criminal or even considering given back Texas to its rightful owners, no thought not, what about the land grab of the from the native American, was that better than king Edward's invading Scotland, Wales and France

the Scottish invaded England on multiple occasions just to even things up and bizarrely Panama, which bankrupted them, requiring that they had to beg England to take them over or they would all starve, which is how Britain come into 3xistanc3 as a political entity

the Scottish like the Americans are generally delusional about their own history

nb its Scottish not Scots, the Scots were a particular tribe in the Roman era
you mean manifest destiny isn't a real thing?
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top