Straw Man Opinions and the Forum Rules

[JimHawkins]

You say you were just debating.

And here I thought we were in discussions to improve learning rather than “win.”

Ahhhh, yes, so simple so true.

When winning is all important then what of truth?

Perhaps if winning is all important then this should be in the mission statement of the forum.

Something like:

"All subjects are welcome. Winning is encouraged."

Hard to win when you don't control the delete button, now wouldn't that be helpful when competing in a tournament... if you're loosing just press the opponent delete button and win by default!

Honor? Bah! Winning is king!

[Mills75]

perhaps I should have avoided this but I need to understand?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jim
{Snip}

I am only interested really in your thoughts as someone with a MA and medical background.

This above was in the tailbone tuck thread on Ricks forum and it's Jim telling Bill in a PM that he was only interested in Bill's opinion and not Ricks on a certain subject? as I think it reads anyway.

Now i'm sorry and no offense meant but how is this not in essence doing the same thing Bill is accused of? When someone says they are not interested in your opinion are they not saying also that it's not valid in someway?

if your opinion is not valid and doesn't matter isn't that basically saying your arguement is a strawman arguement?

the only difference I see is that Bill used the actual word.

I'm just wondering truly Rick why you don't find this to be insulting?

I'm not perfect and I'm not claiming to be and it's not to cause hard feelings or trouble.But I thought about this very scenario and asked myself why is this any different? and so I'm asking?

Thanks
Jeff

[JimHawkins]

perhaps I should have avoided this but I need to understand?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jim
{Snip}

I am only interested really in your thoughts as someone with a MA and medical background.

This above was in the tailbone tuck thread on Ricks forum and it's Jim telling Bill in a PM that he was only interested in Bill's opinion and not Ricks on a certain subject? as I think it reads anyway.

Now i'm sorry and no offense meant but how is this not in essence doing the same thing Bill is accused of? When someone says they are not interested in your opinion are they not saying also that it's not valid in someway?

if your opinion is not valid and doesn't matter isn't that basically saying your arguement is a strawman arguement?

the only difference I see is that Bill used the actual word.

I'm just wondering truly Rick why you don't find this to be insulting?

I'm not perfect and I'm not claiming to be and it's not to cause hard feelings or trouble.But I thought about this very scenario and asked myself why is this any different? and so I'm asking?

Thanks
Jeff

I wanted Bill's medical (MD) opinion/definition as it related to aligning the spine from a anatomical standpoint.

Bill in an 'expert' on such matters.

Rick as far as I know is not an MD.

What is the confusion Jeff?

[Stryke]

I think you misunderstand Jeff , he was asking Bills opinion as a martial artist with a medical background , I dont think he was dismissing anyone elses opinion .

Jim is hardly to be tarred with the same brush . I think he was seeking a medical veiw on the tuck , and from chiropracotrs and physiotherapist Ive talked to it`s a very bad physical posture .

God I think anyone can say there not interested in my opinion , It`s quite another to tell them there plain wrong , Imply there lying and being purposely deceitful .

[JimHawkins]

Thanks Marcus, that was the intent.

If there was any offense given to Rick, I apologize, I value his thoughts very much.

In any case perhaps it’s better not to post PMs that could be taken offensively.

[Rick Wilson]

I read it as Marcus did Jim.

Jeff, remember that posts are often also an accumulated base of history for interpretation.

So Jeff, don’t try and cover for Bill by throwing mud at Jim.

[Bill Glasheen]

I've stated my piece mostly in previous posts, and don't have a lot new to add from those perspectives. I do have some new thoughts though.

First... Did anyone who felt the need to rush to Van's defense ever consider that Van and I have our own relationship? Van and I have already communicated on this issue. Van sent me a very gracious e-mail. He understands the terminology. He understands my intent. He and I in fact are a lot alike in some very scary ways... I find it baffling that a battle would continue on someone's behalf when it has not been requested or even considered warranted by said individual.

People wish to be blunt. I will be blunt here. BUTT OUT!!! My relationship with Van is a long one. When he is angry at me, he tells me, and vice versa. We have seen each other at our best and worst. We have history.

I am offended when other parties wish to define my relationship with someone I know. I am offended at the side-taking, boundary drawing, us against youse guys attitudes.

I also find it puzzling that there is a "group" that feels they are persecuted by me. I see every person for the human being they are and the character they bring to the table. When someone's student comes to me, I acknowledge the instructor but I deal with the individual. If they are a good person and we get along, we have our own way of communicating.

One of the puzzling things about IUKF is what holds it together. George and I have joked about it, and have referred to it as "the secret handshake." There really is no strong top-down-management organization, or an "official policy" way of doing things. This is how you can have TMA folks, chi-sters, RBSD gurus, FMA folks, BJJ folks, military types, NRA types, anti-NRA types, etc., etc. under one roof. When you come to summer camp, we've got lots of groups of people doing their unique things. We have a common bond of a handful of kata and a love of independent thinking.

For those of you who wish to understand me a little better, check out some of the epic threads Rich and I have about SUVs and (gasp) hybrids. You would think Rich and I are enemies. Nope... He is the godfather of my number 1 son.

Friends challenge each other. Friends push each other so that the best is brought out. Humans are humans and feelings can be hurt. I hurt my best friends, and vice versa. But we get over it and move on, because our friendship and our common interests are more important than all the emotional white noise.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

I was having a conversation with a dear friend at lunch today. We were considering the larger picture here.

I then realized that I first met Van 23 years ago this May at an all-day promotional on Thompson's Island. All of us ended up getting our alibaster skins scorched.

After the test, GEM asked each of us instructors to make comments about what they saw. I remember Van's speech about a fellow controlling his opponent in one of the more remarkable sparring matches. (The guy had 3 take-downs from sweeps, followed with an ippon.) More importantly, I then remember Van saying nice things about the 1 of my 4 students who failed. Van liked the way the guy fought. (He WAS a good fighter. But his shoulders came up in his sanchin.)

I remember another Thompson Island trip where a well-known person made a sexually explicit remark to a female I knew. Van politely but firmly minimized the comment.

I remember a promotional (circa 1986) where GEM had forgotten to put me on the test board. (It wasn't my place to insist.) Then David Powell, one of my students and a nidan candidate, came up and did a David Powell Sanchin. Van's eyes lit up. Then he saw me. Then he turned to George and insisted I be on the test board.

Every time Van and I see each other face-to-face, it's as if we've never lost any time.

This is my relationship, folks. It means something to me. Don't you dare tread on this.

Thank you for your understanding.

- Bill

[Van Canna]

As always, I try to be reasonable and ‘defuse’ as much as possible, and I see that Bill and George acknowledge this personal trait.

Bill, George,

In order to understand the thrust of our ‘Scottish friends’ in what they did, it helps to visualize the players. We have read pretty much what Bill, you and I are perceived to be like, fine.

Then we have Rick, Laird, and Marcus, very good friends of mine.

They are of ‘Scottish Highlander clan descent’

A bit of history.

The primary virtues of the clan system were those of a military community—personal strength, courage, hardihood, and devotion.

They are the most loyal and devoted friends I have had the good fortune to meet in my life. Jim Hawkins seems to be another friend cut from the same tartan cloth

There were really only two occupations open to a self-respecting Highland gentleman, hunting and fighting.

This normal state of preparedness for fighting was the mother of opportunities. In this respect "the Wild Scots" were held to go beyond the inhabitants of the Lowlands, who were not accounted to be of a particularly peaceful disposition. The sixteenth century historian, John Major, thinks combativeness a special quality of such as dwell among forests and mountains.

By the first quarter of the eighteenth century the highland warrior had accumulated more modern weapons to the extent of carrying, when armed at all points, a target, a firelock, a heavy broadsword, a pistol, a dirk, and a small knife under the armpit—" in his own individual person a whole company of foot" scoffs the military critic.

These of course were the front-rank men, "who called themselves gentlemen" and had a shilling a day in the Forty-five (Home). The Highland tactic in mass was to charge in columns of clans, unequal in number, from higher ground if at all possible.

So this is what we saw happening here when these gentlemen friends perceived an attack upon me, justifiable or not.

These gentlemen have their own code, and I believe we should cut them some slack, the same as we would anyone else.

We all should be so lucky to be the subject of such gallantry from men of such ‘cloth’ _

I am indeed honored.

And to keep in mind is that these same warriors, can forgive and forget and mend fences extremely well, if we only extend them the respect and courtesy they deserve.

[Guest]

Thanks Van, we see you as a fine man as well.

You understand honor, you understand vendetta, to live the feud, to seek payment for a past transgression.

Gentlemen, the McCanna can ride with us any day we know him to be a man of character! You rock my friend, thanks for the kind words.




If old Abe can wear a tartan I see no reason why you can not have your own cloth!

George and Bill are correct you are an exceptional individual; I’m honored by your friendship!


Maybe you might just want some tartan for your wee mini :;









And they think only the Italians have style. :;




Not everything in a kilt is large and hairy!

[Guest]

Tartan is a fine thing to share with the world!





But if folks don’t like color then there’s always the pleat :;

[JimHawkins]

Very moving post Van, thank you.

It’s an honor to call you friend.

[Rick Wilson]

There is probably a reason the clan Gunn (mine) had enemies on three sides and an ocean on the fourth.

Thanks, Van.

[Mills75]

Well just wanted to clear up this thing..I meant no harm no foul and I'm no longer involved nor should I have been but that really was my point I didn't see a need for anyone to be and that's why I did what I did. I took words posted on a forum whether they should be or not and pasted them not invented them on my own. So mudslinging wasn't my intention and I like Jim and everyone.And i'm sure anyone could find something I said they didn't care for to snip and post also.I'm saying i'm not perfect but nobody else is either.

I just think it's funny some said Bill was pompus and this and that and the other thing and he thinks he's smarter and degrades people which I never saw personally.Then in the same breath say well Bill is a doctor..so which one is it
is he smarter or not? It's ok for him to be smarter in this case just not in any other then?

if we read between lines on the other thing why can't we read between the lines on this I'm only interested in your opinion thing? that means clearly as written to me that in this case he wasn't interested in the other guys thoughts.
just funny i'm the mudslinger for posting someone else's words. double standard maybe?

it's ok to take one guys words and make them into what the majority of people didn't see but if I do it it's mudslinging.and nobody cared in that thread that Bill was a doctor they argued about the tuck and how it was used in martial arts.Bill was invited in by another member then slammed for politely asking to give the advice he was asked for

I'm butting out like Bill said too I just thought fair was fair afterall.and I like Bill and Van equally I'm not so much defending Bill as saying I don't think either of them need anyone to defend them and pile on people.

I have no problem with anyone here I just tried to show an example of something so who knows if I'm the dog then so be it some one has to be I guess in these things. just don't understand how you can be smart in one instance and valued then a pompus ass who thinks he knows everything in another. He's either smart or he's not smart and his opinion matters or it doesn't in my world is all i'm saying..

Jeff

[Rick Wilson]

This has been declared over are you trying to start it up all over again?