Sloppy Zhang

For the record, I think its bagua and the distincion your making is a moot point,

Mind saying why?

And I respect you.

I respect you too

Yeah the phoenix system is the one that calls my name the most. I think its beautiful Which one do you practice? I bought the dragon one but it hurts my back

I don't actually practice any of the yin style traditions, but the yin style system seems to be a very broad, yet detailed system, and it's a great resource for martial, meditative, and healing techniques.

As a side note, they do say that if you want to start out in Yin style, they normally suggest starting with the lion system. Then learning the unicorn system (though that's not on DVD to my knowledge). Lion represents the pure yang trigram, unicorn represents pure yin, so once you get a feel for both of those, you can combine the two and easily pick up the other animal systems. Although each animal system contains aspects of every other system, since the entire animal system encompasses each of the 64 hexagrams in the I Ching. But even that's not the full extent of the yin style that He Jinbao teaches.

I practice most of B.K. Frantzis' material that he's put out. Mostly just working on basic circle walking right now. I was really torn for the entire week that his bagua mastery program was launching. It was such a great chance to get access to that material, but at the same time, it was VERY expensive, something I just can't afford right now. Though I still have a bit of stuff to work on that he's already produced, I feel like I'm starting to get to the end of the published material. hopefully missing the bagua mastery program launch was not a bad decision

Having seen the Taobums pre- and post-moderation, I would say it is a much better place post-moderation.

 

People will complain either way: don't moderate, and people complain about the mess. Do moderate, and people complain about censorship. But at the end of the day, this is a private forum, and the moderation is very light.

 

I would thank the moderators for their voluntary work to make this place better.

 

I remember pre-moderator days, and there was some pretty lol-worthy stuff posted here!

Sure, a lot of it was probably personal attacks and highly offensive stuff but.... still..... some pretty interesting and creative stringing together of various offensive language

But I guess if you cut that out you can, in a way, make sure the "quality" stuff is the stuff that sticks around. But you never know, there are some gems mixed in every once in a while! Crazy wisdom is still wisdom.

Raymond Wolter was banned after he said Cat was "a cheerleader for KAP", causing Cat to yowl and spit and complain to the mods like someone had stepped on her tail, so Raymond got banned. If Cat hadn't made such a fuss to the moderators, he wouldn't have been banned, simple as that. And that comment would have been long forgotten instead of us still talking about Cat the Cheerleader months later. (When I brought it up recently, Mal told me I was living in the past). I see it as discussing inconsistent and unresolved moderation issues.

 

Meanwhile, one member called another "a piece of work" and that wasn't deemed insulting. I imagine if Vajra complained to the mods instead of swatting back at everyone, others would get banned.

Ah, thanks for filling in the background...

I'll have to think that over, as I'm not initially sure how I feel about it...

The edit you made above on the principles comment made no sense man

It's not the principles you use- it's HOW you use the principles.

Running backwards is yielding. You are yielding to the opponent's strength. But that type of yielding usually makes you lose. Is that the yielding of tai chi? No, it is not.

You have to know the methods of tai chi which allow you to yield and still win! These are specific, and have been refined for generations. If you do not know them, you do not know tai chi.

You can do the form, you can repeat the principles. But if you don't know HOW to apply them, you aren't doing tai chi. If you do kick boxing as soon as you get into a fight, you aren't doing tai chi, even if you do solo form practice your entire life.

That was my point.

This jiulong bagua guy might know how to fight. He might be trained in fighting. He might have a lot of students who can kick the crap out of a lot of other styles' students. They might walk in a circle, and apply circular techniques when they are fighting. They can dress up in robes and carry around the I Ching. They can say, "we have no forms, you need to flow with the ever changing energy of the situation". But that doesn't mean they know, or are practicing, bagua.

That was my point.

Glad to hear you're looking into the phoenix system Apparently that was the favored system of the late Dr. Xie Peiqi, who was the lineage holder prior to the current one, He Jinbao.

I just dont understand dude I have read and reread your post and all I can come up with is just becuase it looks and acts like bagua doesnt mean its bagua because of some unknown reason that you havent clarified.

Because there are various methods of INTERNAL training that compose internal martial arts. Methods of conditioning the body, both through standing and moving methods.

Look at some of these videos: here, I suggest watching the second one, because he dives right into some standing exercises. He does a great job of illustrating, right off the bat, how two postures that look the same externally can be doing two radically different things. Also, there are processes going on inside the body which are nearly impossible to see (such as how the ribs/side are being stretched in a posture).

There are processes of training the body which are quite subtle and hard to see unless you know they are there. Even if you copy the movement, you might not even been engaging in the processes that the movement is doing.

The website he provides does not give enough evidence that he knows any sort of internal processes, knows any methods of training specific internal processes, or has ever had a teacher which knows them.

Again, this does not mean that he is incompetent, that he can't fight, that he can't teach, or that he is inexperienced. It just does not necessarily mean he is the inheritor of some bagua lineage.

I cant really see much of a difference between the two. Not in priciples

Because it's not just principles that determine the art!

A principle of tai chi, for example, is yielding. But if you watch a fighter who is scared, and backs up into a corner, and gets the crap beat out of him, you'd say he just got run over. But you could also say he yielded. Does that mean the art of tai chi is running backwards into a corner and getting the crap beat out of you? NO!

There are SPECIFIC methods of tai chi which teach techniques, and training to build your body to carry out those techniques. If you do not know these techniques, you do not know tai chi. You just can't know the form and say, "yield, remember, yield!"

You are either going to get the crap beat out of you, OR, if you are trained in other styles (karate, boxing, judo, etc etc) you may revert to using those techniques with the "flavor" of tai chi (as in, it looks like you are doing tai chi just before, and just after, the fight, but not during). But those do not mean you are doing tai chi!

I guess not, then nothing really does except for some Mystical mumbo jumbo. You dont even know what internal priciples the art teaches. yet you say SOME, as if you know. WhY? because you are already biased in this situation. Which is fine. My perception of what constitutes legitimate practices is very different is suppose. I like to use the lens of science and the a westen perspective to adapt eastern practices to my life. The traditional psuedo explanations are not very important to me.

Ramon, you can believe what you want. But just because you believe something is a certain thing, does not make it so.

As I have said, the guy looks like he's trained and experienced. Is he experienced in the martial art of bagua? Did the people he says teach him actually teach him? Did they even exist? Were they where he said they were when he said they were? The details surrounding his story seem to be suspect. What he teaches seems to be suspect.

A boxer can step into a tournament and beat the crap out of a lot of people. He can even beat the crap out of a lot of traditional and internal arts practitioners. But if he says he teaches bagua, and walks in a circle, is he really practicing bagua? Even if he says, "I channel the energy of the trigrams into spontaneous, circular movement", is that really bagua?

This guy is suspicious to me because I can't find any real content on HIS style, just a bunch of generic keywords and phrases that can be found anywhere. When I was a kid I got suckered by a lot of teachers that looked, acted, and quacked like a duck, but didn't have the goods. So I'm fairly critical and intensive when looking at new people. And this guy.... is not promising in my humble opinion. That's not to say he's not a healthy, effective fighter. I just don't know that he teaches bagua.

Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, that isn't just copied and pasted from wikipedia or generic enough to fit EVERY style of bagua.

First of all, I'm unfamiliar with the cheerleader remark, and I'm unfamiliar with the circumstances leading up to your own temporary banishment, so I can't speak to that.

Second of all, and please don't take this the wrong way, Ralis.... you are a very direct person, and sometimes that rubs people the wrong way! There may be a few instances in which you could re-craft your manner of speaking in a more diplomatic way, if you take my meaning

That said, the only instances I have seen evidence of moderator activity (and I say "evidence" because usually I stumble into a thread after something has happened, so I don't know what was removed and/or why), they seem to be where a thread has started to go off in personal attacks, rather than debating/arguing a particular point or stance. So there's a shift from, "this idea is lacking in...." to "you believe this idea so you are lacking in..."

I don't know that it is an encroachment on free speech. Perhaps their usage of the phrase, "shaping the discussion to add content" is their own diplomatic way of saying, "we're cutting out members who post personal attacks, or are hounding another member simply because of a personal disagreement".

I'm an advocate of free speech. To some extent, I don't like censorship of any kind. I am perfectly fine with seeing comments that involve lots of swearing and otherwise unseemly language. However, I know that many others are offended by this. I also know that our forum is in a particularly interesting situation- we occasionally are visited by well known members of the spiritual/martial community, some of whom are well known teachers and authors, and we've even conducted interviews with some of these people! So there is a distinctly professional image that has become associated (whether accidentally or intentionally) with our little corner of the internet. Perhaps the moderator attempts to moderate conversation and cut out any.... rough edges, are an attempt to clean the place up in case someone respectable happens by and does not understand our unique way of communicating with one another?

if LOOKS like a duck, ACTS like a duck and QUACKS like a duck is what I said. Your reading and seeing what you want here sloppy

EXTERNAL qualities are not enough to appraise the INTERNAL qualities of INTERNAL martial arts.

You can't judge a teacher's knowledge or ability, or the art itself, based on how it LOOKS, ACTS, or even the SOUNDS it's making.

Just because a teacher knows how to dress, knows how to act, and knows what to say, does not mean that their art is a true internal art!

Just because you walk in a circle, beat up some students in front of a camera, and spout a bunch of internal principles, does NOT mean you are doing bagua!

If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like one, its probably a duck.

The problem is that, when it comes to internal martial arts, looks CANNOT be deciding factor for what it is.

I realize that the last few posts offered good advice in theory, yet did not explain how to "not think about it" , or how to "clear your mind".

I, for one, did give a suggestion for how to "not think about it"- do something else.

What happens if you sit down and say, "I'm not going to think about sex." What is the keyword that you keep repeating? Let's look at it again... "I'm not going to think about sex". That's right- SEX! It'll be on your mind even if you try to not think about it.

Do something else. Find your passion, and do it. Learn to play the guitar, for example. Learn some cords, play away.

One of the reasons the same thoughts keep popping up, even when you try to meditate, is because those thoughts are probably the only ones you have in your free time. When you broaden the scope of what it is you do during the day, you stop being so focused on just one thing.

Now there are ways of dealing with this through meditation and/or willpower, but I highly suggest you do what I've already suggested. It's easier, and most likely will take care of the problem. I find that most people don't have a problem with sex or anything until they are told (usually by whatever spiritual tradition they are following) that it is a problem and they need to stop. Suddenly, they become more focused on sex than they've ever been simply because they have been told to stop!

Who is plagiarizing? I like to quote various sources at times, but I imagine I credit them every time I quote them. Did I forget to credit something somewhere? If yes, I'd like for it to be pointed out to me directly, without ambiguities and hand waving, and I will correct it.

 

I doubt you were referring to me though. Still, I've read your link ralis and I can't find the guilty party.

 

Also, I believe certain teachings are so special and sacred that they belong to all of humanity and need not be credited when quoted. Furthermore, while I take a somewhat negative position on book copying considering how relatively inexpensive most books are, I encourage people to copy certain special and sacred teachings regardless of legal issues and especially if you are poor. Some teachings no man has a right to claim ownership of. Some things belong to all of humanity and the wisest and most excellent spiritual teachings are in that category.

 

And yet from what you describe ralis, I doubt the plagiarized material falls into the category I refer to in the above paragraph.

I think this thread is in response to thelearner pointing out that shaolin has said that certain texts say a certain thing when, in fact, they do not. So in referencing a well respected text, it initially seems to give credibility to his argument, but in actuality, when someone investigates the source, it doesn't support the position at all.

And since we aren't really big on enforcing the citing of sources, people can come in and say pretty much whatever they want about anything, and the only way we can verify it is if someone else is familiar with the thing they are talking about.

Sloppy, why do you say fishy?

Seems kind of gimmicky. He uses all the right keywords, cites the history that everybody knows, without really talking about the development of his own personal style. I have not been able to find any info on the teachers he cites. In fact, each time I search for their names, I get dozens and dozens of forums of people asking the same questions. A few people who were his students have said that he didn't really teach them much. He's a strong guy and a good fighter to begin with, so he does stuff that LOOKS like bagua, but the reason he beats people is because he's an athletic, experienced guy already, not that he uses bagua to win.

You guys / gals studying from DVDs and books: do you spar with a real-life partner or how you make sure that you can use the techniques in real life?

I get together on a pretty regular basis (every other week, or whenever we can meet together) with guys who I've known for a while who have trained in a bunch of different systems. Me and another guy go back to my karate days, when we sparred full contact. Another guy used to train brazilian jujutsu and boxing, and another guy wrestled in high school and was on a college wrestling team. We've got a pretty eclectic background, but we also go and look out at other techniques- one of the guys had studied some aikido, I've been looking into techniques from taiji for a little while, and we basically just test them alongside our regular free fighting practice.

If one guy wants to test his standing/rooting skills, we got a guy who's willing to push at varying degrees of resistance. Lowest level is just like, "hey, I'm pushing you", the highest level is, "I'm trying to throw you on your ass".

For me, it's very helpful, because when you are pressure testing your techniques, the right technique comes out naturally. You don't need a teacher to tell you, "you're doing it wrong", because your body learns very quickly that if you do it wrong, you're either going to get 1) punched in the face, or 2) thrown on your ass.

But that also means you have to keep the integrity of what it is you are doing. It's easy to revert back to something you already know, like karate or boxing, when trying something from aikido or tai chi. So you really gotta stick with what it is you are trying to experiment with at the time. But it also means you can find the alignments of YOUR body, and find things that work for you.

Testing out your stuff against a resisting opponent is an absolute must for ANY practitioner, even if you are learning from a book/dvd.

Stop thinking about it.

And by that, I mean, think about something else.

The more you try *not* to think about something, the more you wind up thinking about it.

But if you think of something else, and find some other hobby to take up all the time you would spend doing whatever else you want to stop doing, then, well, you wind up not thinking about the thing you want to stop doing, and it slowly detaches from your life.

I highly suggest B.K. Frantzis' books, "Relaxing Into Your Being", "The Great Stillness", and "Opening the Energy Gates of Your Body."

The first two give great overviews of the taoist philosophy, as well as basic introductory meditative/qigong practices. The third book is a GREAT book for learning an excellent meditative method, as well as a good qigong routine, all with principles that can help you should you decide to study other material or branch off into martial arts.

Overall, lots of material that can keep your busy for a long time, as well as get you into a healthy, safe, effective practice.

I feel like there are a lot of added meanings to terms we use, connotations, social perceptions, that shape our view of how we are changing.

I was raised in the west. America, to be specific. You give a strong handshake, and look people in the eye when you talk to them. Yes, you talk to them. If someone gives you a problem, you let them know. You face your problems head on. Like a man. You treat women with respect. You have a certain amount of friends you hang out with. Doesn't have to be a lot, a few good close one are good enough.

That's kind of the expected model. In many cases, I didn't conform to it growing up. Eventually I realized how to create an image of conforming. It's not really that hard. Once you learn the formula, you can do it. You can not really care, but have everyone think you do. Interesting stuff. But that's a side note.

As the saying goes, "there's more than one way to skin a cat". There are lots of different ways to interact. In high school I studied Japanese as my foreign language. I had an actual Japanese teacher from Japan, so I got a chance to learn Japanese culture. In some ways very different, in other ways the same. Got a scholarship to study abroad in Japan. Interesting stuff. Again, you see other ways of how problems are faced and how social interactions are done.

So what you "should" be doing is very, VERY socially defined. "Being social" is, in and of itself, socially defined. Now, it's one thing if you do not like the way you are currently. If that's the case, do what you feel you need to do in order to change it.

However, I HIGHLY suggest that each and every person examines WHY they feel uncomfortable with how they are- whether they feel they are not social, whether they feel they are turning into a wuss, whether they feel they are too introverted- is it because YOU feel you aren't doing what YOU should be doing, or is it because you don't feel you're doing what you've been TOLD you SHOULD be doing?

Not wanting to interact socially does not make you anti-social. You may value the time and energy that goes into social interactions, and choose to put it specifically into social interactions you CHOOSE to, rather than the social interactions that are there by CONVENTION (ie we're at a dinner party, let's have some appetizers and talk to people we really don't care about just to be seen)

Being more flexible and accepting of others actions does not make you a wuss. You may learn a lot about different types of people, observe how they behave, and learn how you can solve problems without just saying, "hey, I don't like the way you are acting, you need to change or I'll throw you out of here!" As the saying goes, the tree that bends does not break. However, in the process of bending, the trees structure is not compromised. The dominant view in the culture I was growing up in was that yielding meant you were compromised, that you were weak, that a weakness was exploited, and that you failed to hold your ground. However, there is a type of DELIBERATE yielding in which your structure is not compromised, yet you do not act antagonistically to an opposing force.

Not being in mainstream society does not make you introverted. Some prefer to spend their time in more crowded places, others do not. It doesn't mean that there is a problem with you, or your social skills. That is a socially constructed implication from a society that values "outgoing" personalities, "popularity", etc etc.

Mewtwo, I understand your movement towards finding a teaching which is as close to the "source" as possible, but think of it this way- if it's in the form of some teaching, it MUST go through people somewhere along the way. Even if it is etched in stone by the gods, a human must read it and repeat it, humans must interpret it. Even if you physically go to the site of the stone carving, you have no way of knowing that it was actually written in stone by the gods. It could be fake.

Now imagine some power left a message in stone right before your eyes, and it revealed to you the truth path and message of peace. You went to tell everyone, and guess what? Everyone says- you could be lying, we don't know you didn't write it yourself, or make it up, blah blah blah. Even if you were the first person to reveal the message, as long as it is being passed in the form of teaching, it allows the possibility to be corrupted by humans.

So what can you do?

In a general level, you can find the most trustworthy people. Those with perfect memory who recite and pass on teachings which are verified and corroborated by hundreds of others over dozens of years are fairly reliable in terms of consistency. Of course, one could argue that they could still all work together and create a prepackaged system that they just made up or corrupted.

And guess what? Even if they DID transmit the original teachings of the buddha, how do you know the buddha was right? The buddha could have been lying! The buddha could have just been duping people! And he got people to follow him, and they also wanted to dupe people, so they passed on the stories of the buddha! You seem to be investigating possible sources of human corruption, but you, in this thread, are assuming the inherent legitimacy of the buddha's teachings, and that others could have corrupt it. Maybe his teachings were corrupt to begin with!

So what can you do?

PRACTICE it. Find out for yourself. Does it work for you? If so, DO IT. If it doesn't, guess what? DON'T! It's easy to weed out obvious fakes- people who do not have a legitimate lineage, whose stories do not match up or corroborate with other known facts, etc. More often than not, they can't even keep their OWN story straight. They don't have any successful or known students. But then you got the "big guys", major institutions- Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc etc. You can, with relative ease, trace their lineages and the evolution/preservation of any text they use. What you can't do through scholarly effort and background checking is determine the truth of their teachings. You can't determine through scholarly means if the words they have written down were really truth, were really the revealed message, or anything like that. The only way you are going to do that, is through your own practice and experience.

Which is one of the things that Buddhism supports! (if I recall correctly)

No problem. Jiulong baguazhang is very interesting. It is very practical in comparisons to more traditional systems. Ironically there is no preset forms! You learn the principles, the palm changes and stepping. with time, one you you know the palms you link them sponaneaously in the moment to create ever chaning forms that are adaptable, you get in a FLOW pursay. True to the daoist philosophy.

here is what it looks like

I've been looking through the website of Jiulong bagua and... it seems kinda fishy...

http://www.ninedragonbaguazhang.com/navigate.htm

http://www.ninedragonbaguazhang.com/whatis.htm

http://www.ninedragonbaguazhang.com/donghai.htm (the historical note at bottom)

Rainbow...

 

Awesome idea!

My posts are suspiciously lacking in the happy face department.

But I am smiling as I type this...does that count?

 

Can I just say about the original post...Really?

 

Free flowing discussion...isn't always neat and tidy

with all the appropriate references.

 

Let's all play nice and go with the flow....Be like water.

 

Peaceful thoughts of happyface people.

In general I agree that conversation in this type of area is going to be more free flowing, a bit more off the cuff, a bit more anecdotal, and overall more casual.

But at the same time, serious subjects get discussed here. References are made to specific texts, specific people, and other very specific things which, if referenced, should easily be able to be verified by anyone.

Though I can't really come up with any hard and fast rules, and tend to really just say, "it depends on the situation", there are some things that should be cited. Claims about something which may cause controversy. If you are saying that a specific person said something, or something particular was written in a specific text, you should try as hard as possible to cite it.

This way others can ensure that what was said was not taken out of context, we can find out what the authors intentions were behind writing that, etc etc.

I am well aware that the videos I posted are not the best practitioners in the world at their art. They may not even all be proffessionals. The point was that poeple were claiming that internal martial artists dont compete, and that is obviously not the case.

You have to look at the level of competition. Two kids racing each other to the ice cream truck are still "racing" in the same way that Olympic sprinters are "racing". But those two things are WORLDS apart.

So yeah, basically you could say the same thing about anyone of any martial art style. You could say, an amateur boxer compared to a proffessional boxer is like a boy scout to a special forces. Everyone would say, yeah no shit, whats your point?

The point is that, like my example above, the competition is WORLDS apart. And in martial arts, at least, the level with which you do something plays a big difference.

In training, what's better: sporadic, inconsistent practice, or regular, consistent practice? While one could argue that both are "practicing", another could respond with one is practicing more "correctly", and one may even go so far as to argue that the former is not even "practicing" at all, because in their definition, "practicing" may imply regularity and consistency!

Push hands is neat as an exercise. But if it remains as some standard, rather than having the practitioner advance to training that involves more actual combat-like scenarios, then, well, it's not really preparing, is it? Sensitivity and other things like that are important, but training individual attributes, while a part of training, cannot alone be the extent of the training.

If someone is a good fighter, yet has never encountered a particular style and doesnt know how they fight, then even an amateur in that style could give them problems.

So then, are they really a "good fighter"? If your style focusing on fighting while standing, you may be a very good "stand up fighter", if you focus on wrestling, you might be a very good "wrestler". But to what extent are they just all around "good fighters"? Even soldiers, who can branch off into many specialized fields, all go through the same basic training, they are all held to a certain standard of proficiency in a variety of basic skills. Even without specialized training, they can all be considered "good soldiers".

Now I should probably say that I have the utmost respect for internal martial arts, their history, its teachers, and the contributions they have made in knowing the human body and developing it through highly specialized training. But there are some obvious failings for the most part (not the entirety, however) in many martial arts communities, though they tend to be more prevalent in internal martial arts, and some other arts which are considered more "traditional".

That seems to be the common thread of acceptance without testing. Lack of training in situations that mimic as closely as possible real combat. Martial arts can be found in pretty much all cultures. Boxing and wrestling found in the west can be seen in ancient Greece (though perhaps in different forms than we see today). Yet they continue to grow and innovate and be shaped not theoretically, but PRACTICALLY. In the ring. On the street. Even in military combatives (when my dad was in the navy, he said he learned boxing and judo as part of his basic training)

Where is bagua being developed? Tai chi? Where is it being used? Teachers like Novell Bell and Rudy Curry are doing a great job of introducing traditional arts in a modern context. Sifu Rudy had a great video a while back about tai chi heavy bag training. Very interesting stuff. Students and other teachers need to be taking that further, training students so that they can develop APPLICABLE skills, and hopefully, sometime, adapt those skills for usage in professional fighting venues (which would of course different from non-ring versions).

Assuming for the moment that you are creating a reality in which meridians, dantiens and other energy structures exist, and that you can manipulate them....

I'd say yes, certain forms have specific targets. For example, B.K. Frantzis' Dragon and Tiger Medical Qigong form targets specific pathways. Are there probably other forms of energizing the same pathways? Sure. Is there most likely a way you can energize these even without going through a routine? Sure. Can you spontaneously discover these pathways and energize them yourself? Most likely.

But that doesn't necessarily put it in the realm of "bs", at least in my humble opinion.

I forgot to post the link. The post at the bottom of page 2 is where it is brought up.

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/16290-sacred-text-that-has-not-been-altered-by-man/page__st__16

Ah, I see. Well, I guess it depends. Ideally a direct quote, the source used, and where exactly in the source the selection came from should be given. But, you know, that can't always happen. Sometimes we don't have the book/website on hand, sometimes we can't even remember where we read it. Usually if that happens I say something like, "I can't remember where I read this, but...." and so on.

For an obvious reference like, "it says in the Bible that...." well, that's helpful and unhelpful, because now we know what to look in, but we don't know where!

In an academic or professional setting, a direct reference would be required. You can't really just say, "oh it says so in the Bible, really, go read it all for yourself!"

But in an internet forum (which can run the gamut from very casual to very formal), I'm inclined to be a little less strict. However, if you are saying something that is a bit more extreme, like, "the Bible says that aliens don't exist!" then, uh, you should probably cite where you're getting that directly.

I dunno if that helps. Just my thoughts on it. The more potentially inflammatory the reference, the more citation needed, I'd say.

Racism = Fear.

 

They say mopai comes from god and heaven....is god really going to say only chinese can learn the secrets of the universe ? Gods a racist now ? Ridiculous.

 

Heaven forbid if 鬼佬 learn mopai. Too bad that 鬼佬 is better and trains harder then his lazy brothers. A great unjustice has been done to Jim but its only a matter of time before he gets what he deserves and worked so hard for. Nothing stays unbalanced forever.

 

Good Luck,

Unless being barred from the path is part of the unbalancing process.

(note: I do not agree with the statement I made just above this one, I'm just saying that if you adopt the view that unbalanced things eventually re-balance, well, maybe THIS is part of the re-balancing, not the unbalancing).

King raised a point that I have been pondering pretty much ever since I began qigong a couple years ago, and that is what constitutes winter officially? I was living in Alaska which my Finish friends who visited me there told me is pretty much identical to Finland. Now I live in San Antonio Texas which in my alaskaized eyes does not even have a true winter, but the wimps down here think they do haha. So what determines "winter" the sesonal climate, or the time of year?

When it's too cold to do the things I do in warmer times of the year in the manner I normally do them

I have never seen any great YouTube clip comparable to the best of what I've seen in person. Part of that is just the limitations of the medium, I'm sure. But then again, I have been specifically instructed not to post some stuff online, and I'm not the only one. The details are nobody's business...uh-oh, I feel another investigation starting?!

If you choose not to share, that's fine. It's your prerogative. But if you go around saying, "oh well this is not martial arts, I have the real martial arts, oh but no, I'm told I can't show you", well, hopefully you see how that behavior is suspect?

I've spent just enough time there to decide I don't want to spend more time there. The average poster is neither very smart nor very experienced, and their so-called revelations are Martial Arts 101 in my personal opinion. Hearing from the few decent people on there isn't worth suffering the rest.

 

Many of my past, current, and future training partners do not and will not share my low opinion of that forum. Some, like you I gather, disagree 100 percent. And that is OK. I offer alternatives for those who want them.

No, I do not agree 100% that the average poster isn't the smartest or the most experience. I'd only disagree with you on the extent of the value (or lack thereof) of bullshido and the people who frequent it (some of whom are very experienced, very respectful, and very intelligent).

Great. I hope you realize that is not their innovation, but great.

Yet some how they catch all the heat for doing it.

Absurd. When one student is wrong, you hold the student accountable. When they are all wrong, you hold the teacher accountable. Or the moderators. I don't need to hear (again) how their reputation is the victim of an anonymous user base--that is a cowardly excuse unbefitting any adult, much less a courageous martial artist.

That's funny.

If you want to know what the martial arts world would look like with those folks calling all the shots, just look at the entire forum as it stands now. No, not a small portion of it; not your favorite corner; all of it. Fcuk my life, I would have to take up fishing instead, before I could stand another worthless lecture about "fully resisting opponents".

No, it wouldn't. Do you know why? Because with them "calling all the shots", none of the fakes would have a job. There would be no question of what training methods were effective. New, experimental, and alternative methods would not go around (nor would they be allowed to) making claims about what it can do, how it can beat X number of people, how he can beat someone even if they have Y amount more muscle mass than you, etc etc, and instead would be subjected to rigorous testing and carefully analyzed results before making any claims. Even those new to martial arts would have less of a chance of being duped, because the standards would be so obvious and enforced.

If bullshido "called all the shots" in the martial arts world, eventually bullshido would be out of a job. The few amount of newbies that slip through the cracks somehow and don't know the standards of training would not be numerous enough to make it a profitable (if it was even self sustaining) business venture.

False advertising is usually legal. Lying is legal. And being lame is legal, obviously. Now, who has the strength and fortitude to stand up and protect the freedoms of the lamest, from the zealotry of the fundamentalists?

No one cares if they are lame. Bullshido has no problem with someone being the lamest dude on the planet. Their goal is not to eliminate lame-ness from the world. Their goal is to eliminate the people who are lame and LYING about it.

Again, if you show up and say, "hi, I learned bagua (or any other art) from my teacher who is so and so, he said it came from such and such lineage, but I've never met someone else from the lineage, he said it can be used in combat, but I've never used it in a fight, he told me these are what the applications are, but I don't know because I've never used them, and to be honest I haven't really had to, however, bagua has really helped my coordination, circulation, and gives me good exercise. I'll teach you what I know" they'd be perfectly fine.

The PROBLEM comes when someone like that says stuff like: "I learned bagua from my teacher, who said it's from a 100,000 year lineage, and unlike normal bagua, which can only fight 8 people at a time, this can fight 78 at a time, and I know, because I used to be a special forces soldier, but I can't tell you where I was deployed because they were all black ops missions, but once we were surrounded by insurgents armed with knives and machetes in south american jungles, and there were 80 of them, and we were out of bullets, and I beat them all and saved all my buddies, but they're dead now so you can't verify that. Also my teacher is well respected in an obscure part of China. If you learn this, you'll be able to fight people who train for "ring" "sports", you won't need to work out, and you'll be able to defend yourself against armed and unarmed attackers."

See the difference? It's not about "cool" or "lame", it's about "truth" or "bullshit" (or should I say, "bullshido" )

Very few, I tell you what. Enough said about that. I don't want to chat about them any more.

I have no interest in support frauds, especially when the stuff they teach can get people killed. And I have very little respect for appealing to concepts such as "strength", "fortitude", "freedom" and the like when they are used to defend the reprehensible actions taken by deliberate frauds.

In other news, over here in Seattle, yet another citizen video of police brutality was released yesterday. After the cop got the guy cuffed, he started kicking that guy in the groin and head. These are our volunteer champions of law and order. Clearly, we need better screening and training of our volunteers, wouldn't you agree.

Perhaps you should ask that in a new thread?

If you don't mind my asking, what thread had this brought up?

If I see large blocks of text in a quote box, I assume it's a quote. If there isn't a direct link, they usually say where it is.

In some cases, people might have read something in a book about a certain subject, and are just writing from memory what they remember the book saying. Stuff that I remember from books I usually do that, make a brief reference from where I read what it is, then just say it, but I don't always give a link.

Any examples that you have?