Lee-Yin-Sing Jook-Lum New USA & Australian Reps

[Steven T. Richards]

I am pleased to announce that Grandmaster Lee-Sun-Wah (Lee-Lien/Ah-Gore-Lien) son of Great Grandmaster Lee-Yin-Sing has appointed:

John F. Springer of Maryland USA as his official representative for the United States

and

'Aussie' John Lee and Les williams, representatives for Australia.

Steve Richards,
Disciple and nominated co-successor to Grandmaster Lee.

[fukien]

So who gets to vote on it?
Who "nominated" you????

[Steven T. Richards]

If you read the post it is clear that Grandmaster Lee made the appointments - which is entirely within his gift. As for 'nominated' the word is derived from Latin: nominatusmeaning to 'designate, to mention by name, to appoint to an office or duty'. Grandmaster Lee so nominated my Kung-Fu Brother Andy Liu-Kin-Ming and myself as witnessed by his blood family and Pai. It is in that capacity that I make the announcement on behalf of Grandmaster Lee and the Lee-Yin-Sing Pai.

[Hungmei]

Steve:

I know this guy from his posts a couple of years back. He's a disgruntled former student of Norman Chin who got 'priced out' and apparently didn't show sufficient promise for Norman to make accommodations.

He knows nothing and is no one. As you can see from his pedestrian understanding of things that are context based the guy is an Internet surfer and SPM neophyte (if he ever got that far).

His main tactic is to goad someone into 'proving him wrong' and then he co-opts the information. That's how Fukien 'develops' his knowledge base.

I see from his challenging, and ate up disrespectful post, that he hasn't 'improved' and still refuses to do what's necessary to get inside the door.

Your choice, but you might consider ignoring him.
John

[Self-Thinking Follower]

Fukien is a SPM practitioner unrelated to N.Chin, In fact he also practices the little known Hakka Unicorn style. As for being opposed to Norman, my god, everyone whose had to deal with him is disgruntled!

[fukien]

I have never have been a "student" of Norman.

My Unicorn Sifu only teaches privately and for no money.

My original question was about the strange choice of words used.

Two people were appointed, and one was nominated.

I wanted to know the difference, and I got a answer.

Thank you.P

[Hungmei]

Still Thinking Follower:

>Wrong!

Nope, 100% correct.

>Fukien is a SPM practitioner unrelated to N.Chin, In fact he also practices the little known Hakka Unicorn style.

Never stated that he was related and his posts reveal his 'relationship' quite clearly. Nice try at muddying the waters <g>

>As for being opposed to Norman, my god, everyone whose had to deal with him is disgruntled!

Sure, in '74 I heard the same thing about Lum Sang. Same deal applied to Ho Dun, with a couple of 'additions' <g> Yet again, same thing said about Mark Foon. So from the poseur and wannabe crowd I consider opposition and disgruntlement to be a hall mark of authenticity. John

[Self-Thinking Follower]

Yes, Red Eyebrow I am still thinking, But I dont know of any connection between Fukien and Norman.
As for disgruntled students in SPM, yes in each generation, Bravo! For the record I have known Fukien's Sifu for over twenty years and I also know his teacher who studied with Lum Sang.
Back then I was unsuccessful in "getting in" because I was'nt Hakka, but my friend (Fukien's teacher) did get in. I have seen him train Fukien in both Tong Long and Chi Lin boxing systems.

[Hungmei]

>Yes, Red Eyebrow I am still thinking, But I dont know of any connection between Fukien and Norman.

Irrelevant as my post was to Steve. You're the one who decided to wade into something that is none of your business. That is, unless you have a formal responsibility with regard to Fukien.

>As for disgruntled students in SPM, yes in each generation, Bravo!

Not at all limited to SPM. Seems that art, regardless of medium, polarizes the masses into those who 'get' it and those who cast stones because they can't get it.

>For the record I have known Fukien's Sifu for over twenty years and I also know his teacher who studied with Lum Sang.

Then for the 'record' Fukien should know better than to show his ass in public. Particularly to another senior ranking Pai member.

>Back then I was unsuccessful in "getting in" because I was'nt Hakka, but my friend (Fukien's teacher) did get in. I have seen him train Fukien in both Tong Long and Chi Lin boxing systems.

Understood on the non-Hakka end of it. Shame that cultural pride is sometimes taken to an extreme and is reduced to nothing more than bigotry and/or racism. John

[fukien]

"Then for the 'record' Fukien should know better than to show his ass in public. Particularly to another senior ranking Pai member. "

Am I supposed to take that as some kind of threat?

[Hungmei]

"Then for the 'record' Fukien should know better than to show his ass in public. Particularly to another senior ranking Pai member. "

>Am I supposed to take that as some kind of threat?

It was, and is, a statement of fact. You're none too bright. Since I'm in your geographical area I extend an invitation to meet with me (Statement of Fact). After all, kong sau is the time honored
and traditional way of resolving these things (Statement of Fact). Ask your Sifu if this escapes your addled mind and be sure to show him some “examples” of your forum posts throughout the years :) John

[fukien]

I'll let you know the next time I come up North. :-)c

[Hungmei]

>I'll let you know the next time I come up North. :-)c

I'm in your area (Surprised? The word is ‘trapped’), not up North. Now what's it going to be? You can either do the right thing and apologize to Steve for your disrespectful post, or you can accept my kind and generous offer to personally hand guide you through the process of discovering the error of your ways :D John

[Self-Thinking Follower]

Hung Mei, As a Gung Fu uncle of sorts to Fukien, I jumped into someone elses business, only to state that he was from another line. Now of course I personaly can tell you what problem children exsist in SPM but from your challenge to Fukien, Its obvious your one also! Perhaps it was none of our business as to who was appointed or nominated whatever in Lee Yin Sing Jook Lum. Still this is a public forum and the announcement was made. All announcements tend to draw questions and Fukien asked his. Now it has turned into another internet challenge.

[This message was edited by Self-Thinking Follower on 08-28-01 at 05:11 PM.]

[Hungmei]

>Hung Mei, As a Gung Fu uncle of sorts to Fukien, I jumped into someone elses business, only to state that he was from another line.

Nope, what you attempted to do was validate his disrespectful posts to Steve. As an Uncle you are an abysmal failure.

>Now of course I personaly can tell you what problem children exsist in SPM . . .

And any good Uncle would have immediately reeled in his charge.

>. . . but from your challenge to Fukien, Its obvious your one also!

What is obvious is that you are in no position to serve as anyone's Uncle.

>Perhaps it was none of our business as to who was appointed or nominated whatever in Lee Yin Sing Jook Lum.

Irrelevant. Doesn't excuse Fukien's behavior.

>Still this is a public forum and the announcement was made. All announcements tend to draw questions and Fukien asked his.

Rubbish. Who is Fukien's Sifu? Fukien is his disciple and his responsibility.

>Now it has turned into another internet challenge.

Nope, now it has turned into a matter of Fukien either doing the right thing or putting his hands where his mouth is. John

[fukien]

Hungmei,

I have a challenge for you.

Please point out anything I have said in this very public forum about Steve Richards that is not true.Œ

[Self-Thinking Follower]

Hung mei, knowing that Fukien's teacher does'nt even own a computer and most likely has'nt been told what was posted here, I will leave this matter between Fukien and you, to resolve as you see fit. Since you are in his area, and made yourself known, no doubt some contact will occur.
My hopes are that no one else gets involved and you both can remain civil.

[fukien]

Uncle,

What was so disrespectful about what I posted;

"My original question was about the strange choice of words used.
Two people were appointed, and one was nominated.
I wanted to know the difference, and I got a answer.
Thank you."

Hey, I THANKED Si-Fu Richards for clarifying the point.

Now Jack COULD have just picked up the phone and called his new "si-fu" and
tell him that he is all bent out of shape about my post, but noooooooo,
but he chose to threaten to me on this public forum.

I wonder if the threat was made at the request of Si-Fu Richards, or
is Jack taking matters into his own hands?

If he is doing this on his own, perhaps he should read his own words:
"and any good Uncle would have immediately reeled in his charge."
" Rubbish...Fukien is his disciple and his responsibility. "

Is Jack being a hypocrite, an out of control student, or just the Jack
we all know and love from the Chow Gar board??????

Hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm...................

[Steven T. Richards]

Fukien,

This is NOT a very public forum, it is far from the original Roman meaning of the term. Indeed, it is a literal 'virtual' space where there is no obligation at all for face-face person-person communication. If it where truly public then there would be no anonymity and no oportunity for the kind of distortions indulged in by some people. That said, I accept of course the right of people in this virtual space to maintain their anonymity.

However it was YOU who started this process by making personal attacks, and with respect to your initial response to the announcement from Grandmaster Lee a reasonable person could be expected to construe your remarks as a mocking insolence veiled by your anonymity. You know full well the meaning of the term 'nominated': you for example claim that Lam-Sang did not nominate a successor. Grandmaster Lee is making his position very clear. There are to be two nominated co-successors to his Pai (as named in the follow up post to the one above). We will have the responsibilty to care for the Lee-Yin-Sing Alter, and to continue on with Grandmaster Lee's personal school.

You accused my student Barefoot of being me, you made personal attacks against me in what YOU call this very public forum. You then post in a feigned incredulous way over the terms 'appointed' and 'nominated'. All very 'brave'and just the kind of thing that can be expected from a disenfranchised no-face who is motivated by bitter jealousy.

Jack's response to you was entirely appropriate from within a traditional framework. Why should an annonymous person who posts insults be given any credibility at all? If your intentions were benign you could have phrased your questions differently, other posters do on this forum, not just of me but of one another. Its simply about good manners or the lack thereof.

To make it crytsal clear in case you are lacking in intelligence, Jack is Grandmaster Lee's student not mine - a further insult. Jack has every right to respond to you as he sees fit given your attitude.

Further, Jack's identity, and mine, are transparent to anyone, whereas you who bleat on about truth conceal yourself behind the lie of annonymity (which of course is your perfct right).
However, if you choose to make a no-mark of yourself and to make utterly unprovoked attacks on others, then you may expect to be called to account.

If you have a difficulty towards me then you are free to approach me in person about it.

[Hiram]

The more you respond... the more you prove others right.

[fukien]

Was anything I said a lie?

I guess nobody can prove me wrong. :)

[fukien]

Steve,

About that "anonymity" thing, you wrote:
"However it was YOU who started this process by making personal attacks, and with respect to your initial response to the announcement from Grandmaster Lee a reasonable person could be expected to constru e your remarks as a mocking insolence veiled by your anonymity."

Lets see now.....
I don't have a "reply-to" email address in my bio.
But neither do you, "Hungmei", or "Barefoot Mantis" so who are you to say anything about the "anonymity" of others?

BTW, all I did was ask a question, you answered it, I thanked you and then your new brethren decided to take umbrage which was, until their involvement, a civil discourse.

You went on to say:
"You know full well the meaning of the term 'nominated': you fo r example claim that Lam-Sang did not nominate a successor. "

Obviously you are clairvoyant as to say ""You know full well the meaning of..." since you can read my thoughts. That is NOT what I said. What I DID say was: "Very simply, Lum Sang never formal ly designated a sucessor." Then to suit your needs you wrote: "To make it crytsal clear in case you are lacking in intelligence."
So, on one hand, you compliment me on my intelligence, and on the other, you imply that I am a simpleton! Which is is it? Pe rhaps it is you who should heed Hiram's advice, since it is you who have misquoted me!


Appointed, designated and nominated. It is my understanding that two of the three are very close in meaning.

My understanding is that when one is "nominated" for a position, one does not have the actual title and that there is a process that one must pass though, and that there is the possibility of not being able to attain the position by vote or proxy by superiors. For example, politicians, board members, union leaders, etc are "nominated" for election. Your new representatives were "appointed". The use of the words "designated" or "appointed" indicate a finality of action. They ARE now representatives, while you are "Nominated" and have tried to equate the two actions, hence my confusion and my asking you for a clarification of your use of the words in question.

Obviously my command of the English languge is nowhere near yours, so perhaps my comprehension of your announcement was a bid addled, but I read your reply and thanked you.

If you and your breathren want to read more into a very simple post-reply-thank you, that is your perogative.

[diego]

peace....

[Steven T. Richards]

Fukien,

How on earth can you accuse me of anonymity when you claim to know so very much about me? You for example claim to have original posts from the old Foundation board (rather than the doctored crap being circulated by destructive people). My e-mail address is in the public domain and posted on various web sites. My background and training is open knowledge. You however are anonymous and evasive.

You were not directly quoted but were reminded of the context in which you mentioned Lum-sang's sucession. If you can understand that (your own post)then you can easily understand the terms of my post.

Grandmaster Lee has not closed his hands. No one can 'succeed' him until he does, or until he passes. That is the clear contextual meaning of 'nominated'. I cannot be 'appointed' as such until such time as Grandmaster is no longer teaching.

The 'appointees' for representing GM Lee and the Lee-Yin-Sing Pai can of course takle up that position with immediate effect and have done so.

You are quite at liberty to take issue with them in person if you wish.

It isn't a question of difficulties with the English language on your part it's simply ignorrance and evasiveness.

As for you 'lying'about anything that you have said about me: it is quite a big claim to know the whole truth of any convoluted situation. A half truth is not THE truth so you would be well advised to restrict your claims to certain knowledge to that which is completely and wholely true.

You mentioned a dispute with Simon Wong. Such a dispute occurred. You did not however (beyond distortions) go into any fuller detail about it.
Simon Wong acted against the constitution of the Foundation as well as attacking me - he used the Foundation as an internet forum within which to make his attacks - which I deemed completely inappropriate and besides the point. You did not mention that I offered to resign from that group in order to maintain its inter-pai unity and representation and to avoid Wong making my Book an apparent issue. You did not mention the support that the other pai representatives gave to me over Wongs attacks. You did not mention the democratic way in which the Foundation was run - I for example published an open desire to be considered a 'junior' member of the Foundation which you insultingly referred to as a 'club'. You did not mention the vicious camapign waged by
Simon Wong's associates and with his clea personal
approval against my innocent Wife and Children
on his internet forum, linking them with pornography and obscentities of the most disgusting and depraved kind: including at the time my newborn baby and agian at that time my seriously ill Wife.

You did not mention that Yahoo.com closed down his forum for repeated and unacceptable abuse of my family including incitements to violence. You did not mention threats based upon Sun-Dat and occultist beliefs in karma against me and my Wife and Children. Youdid not mention Simon Wong's refusal to face me in person about the above.

No, instead you accused me of acting like a petulant child in defending myself and my Wife and Children.

You accused me of having very opinionated beliefs: I have replied that I simply require proof of claims to certain knowledge over occult beliefs or indeed anything approaching an uncritical and unreflective acceptance of a dogma.
I have been attacked on the UK Chow Gar forum (which you mention familiarity with in a post about Jack)by people who do not like to be questioned over dogmatism - which is the basis for segregation and discrimination (including politically) in the martial arts.

A lot of people don't like my being open.
It seems that people who have my background and experience in TCMA aren't (in the belief of some people) supposed to be like that - they are supossed to be secretive and not engage in open debate - with anyone regardless of status (yes even with an anonymous troublemaking no face like you). Well, whether you like it or not, I have rank, status and authority - and with it responsibility within my Pai, and I will be open and share what knowledge I have, and I will question the wisdom of bigotry, dogma and destructive politics in peeople whose responsibility it is to teach up an coming generations the value of TCMA.

That is why that Foundation was formed. As with any group riven by politics (any given TCMA Pai)
some early work is necessary to sort the issues out before it can proceed constructively.

This was and is a threat to some, but I can tell you now in no uncertain terms that bigotry and destructive politics will not be allowed to destroy the future of TCMA. the Foundation is re-forming (an announcement will follow) and will conduct its business openly and clearly for all to see.

If that is offensive or otherwise disagreeable to you then no doubt you will continue on as you have with distorted half-truths and evasiveness.

Your martial ethic is poor, that is why Jack responded the way that he did to you - traditionally and directly. If you have any fibre at all to your being you will do the right thing.
And if you don't know what that is...

[Hungmei]

Hungmei,
>I have a challenge for you.

You need to answer the one all ready before you.

>Please point out anything I have said in this very public forum about Steve Richards that is not true.Œ

Nonsense. John

[Hungmei]

>I wonder if the threat was made at the request of Si-Fu Richards, or is Jack taking matters into his own hands?

I'm authorized to do just that. Comes with paying ones dues.

>Is Jack being a hypocrite, an out of control student, or just the Jack we all know and love from the Chow Gar board??????

Thanks for verifying your track record :). I was certain you were the same little weenie from a couple of years ago. You have no teacher, you know nothing, and you are no one. Things haven't changed for video correspondence school students I see. John

[Hungmei]

Fukien and his electronic 'Uncle' are well known as crap slingers who for whatever reason gain some degree of pleasure out of creating discontent. Fukien's tactics haven't changed and he has added the new wrinkle of claiming to train in an esoteric, arcane SPM subsystem (No Sifu). I've drawn him out sufficiently for the members of this list to see his tactics, e.g., purely argumentative, cannot name a teacher, refuses to adhere to the traditional ways with regard to "respect" and kong sau. This demonstration of what the insignificant coward and his self-created "Uncle" are really all about is at a conclusion. I'll no longer respond to any post by Fukien (or his false Uncle). Whether any other list member chooses to afford Fukien a measure of credibility is, of course, a personal choice. He knows nothing, is no one, and he has no face. John

[David]

All the best to John, Les and John (Jack) on their new path.

The combined MA experience of these three guys is about twice as long as I've been living. And they become students again! That gets my respect. :D

FWIW, I don't think Fukien intended to get your backs up so much here, however much of an arse he was on my BBS. Not that I'm getting into the debate. [sound of neck retracting and ears closing over]

The powers of Kung Fu never fail!
-- Hong Kong Phooey

[Self-Thinking Follower]

I did'nt know I was a "crap slinger"

Electronic Uncle STF