What would you like to see?

[Phil Elmore]

By now, most of you who are so inclined have probably visited The Martialist to read its current issue, the premier for May. (Judging from my bandwidth usage that was a lot of you, or one of you over and over and over again. Thank you!) Some of you have also subscribed to the "subscriber content," which is essentially the "second half" of the 'zine in linked PDF format. (Thank you again!)

While I believe (please forgive me) it was a good first issue, I want to do more for the next.

What would you like to see?

Feel free to suggest any articles you'd like to see written.

I would also welcome your own article submissions, provided they can be related to the themes of realism and success in self-defense. (An article on the practical benefit of kata would be out, let's say -- but an article on the practical benefits of, say, Karate or Aikido, in which the author explains why they are viable self-defense choices, would be welcome.)

Also -- and this is important -- if you hate the magazine or the idea of it, I want you to write an editorial telling us why. One of the things I intend to do is publish regular point-counterpoint type articles on a variety of issues. The first one contains an article in which one of my teachers and I take opposite sides of the martialism vs. pacifism argument, for example.

If any of you, and I mean any of you, wish to submit an editorial specifically targeting The Martialist (or even me, though I'd rather it was more general), I will publish it (provided it's not just a few paragraphs worth of "you suck!").

Anyway, feel free to make suggestions or requests. Thanks!

 

[D_Brady]

Phil, I'ts great I like the fact you share others view and insights and I thought their was alot to help me understand other arts I'm not familiar with.

As for what else I like to see it's to early to tell . You might have it in you next issue. we will talk then . nice Job


Respectfully

Dan Brady.:asian:

 

[moromoro]

id like to see more legitimate MA people write

 

[Phil Elmore]

Originally posted by moromoro
id like to see more legitimate MA people write

We don't have anyone writing for us who is not "legitimate." If you mean famous martial arts personalities, I'd love to have them submit too, but I can't make them.

 

[moromoro]

We don't have anyone writing for us who is not "legitimate."

how do you know who they say they are??????

 

[Phil Elmore]

James Keating isn't James Keating? Dan Webre isn't Dan Webre? Don Rearic and Ken Cook aren't who they claim to be -- a "tactical" writer whose columns have been known on the web for years and a gunsmith and shooting instructor in Arkansas, respectively?

Who or what is it that these people "claim to be," exactly?

 

[moromoro]

i mean some of the articles where great but some, i dont want to mention names!!!!! where not as good as others


out of all those who wrote this issue, not just the names you wrote do you know them


and i think you should list their credentials on top of their articles so that the reader can see who they are.......(their experience)

thanks

terry

 

[Phil Elmore]

The quality of an article is not determined by the "credentials" of the author, but of the substance of the article itself. To say, "I don't like this article because I don't find the resume of the author impressive enough" is logically fallacious thinking -- it is, specifically, the fallacy of ad hominem, the "attack on the man."

If there's something about a specific article you didn't like, feel free to discuss it, either here or at the forum devoted to the magazine at http://pub182.ezboard.com/battlefieldforum . I don't believe truth or falsehood is found in trophy cases or biographies, though -- I'm more interested in content.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
The quality of an article is not determined by the "credentials" of the author, but of the substance of the article itself. To say, "I don't like this article because I don't find the resume of the author impressive enough" is logically fallacious thinking -- it is, specifically, the fallacy of ad hominem, the "attack on the man."

If there's something about a specific article you didn't like, feel free to discuss it, either here or at the forum devoted to the magazine at http://pub182.ezboard.com/battlefieldforum . I don't believe truth or falsehood is found in trophy cases or biographies, though -- I'm more interested in content.

Agreed! Although I must admit ... life really had to beat that lesson into me.

 

[Phil Elmore]

I think that's true of all of us, really. I hope moro doesn't think I'm coming down on him too hard, or anything -- I just hate to see the "let's see your resume" attitude get in the way of discussing the actual ideas contained in the magazine.

 

[sweeper]

It could be interesting to have someone write an article concerning the change in the type and amount of violence in north america over time based on statistical information gathered from reputable sources.

 

[MartialArtist]

Unlike many of the articles of BB, I want someone who actually went through something, then write about it. If someone's writing on this specific grandmaster, I want the writer to have been a student for quite some time.

Like the reporters during the Vietnam War and today. Vietnam - they went through the trenches. Today's - the danger is still there, but they go in and think they know everything when all they see is the results of what happened.