more on clf history [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

iron_silk

11-05-2002, 10:36 PM

Here are the questions I posted months ago...of course there would be more questions but this would be a start.

Let's try not to bad mouth anyone.

"I took a look at Sifu Lacey's site and his interpretation of the history. There are certain things that I have noticed in the past after reading so many different stories trying to promote Cheung Hung Sing as co-founder.

1) They seem to always ignore Chan Yuen Wu involvement with Chan Hueng. Especially since it was Chan Yuen Wu that taught Chan Hueng Fut Ga Kuen.

2) Choy Fook did not teach Choy Ga Kuen. I am not sure if style of Choy Ga is around but if it is then I am sure we could get some more info from them.

3) Though not in all the cases they encourage the "Chan clan" theory even though there was documented history of students outside of this clan.

***4) When ever a style is created rarely if even at all would there be known to have more than one creator. In general when a style is created it is usually based on the belief of the one. Any more would create conflict. ***

***5) Therefore even if Ching Cho Monk exists Chan Hueng has already created his style, and therefore Choy Lay Fut. Why would Chueng Hung Sing want to get in on what his Sifu has kindly and graciously has worked so hard on? Once he is his teacher forever will he be. Never would Cheung Hung Sing be willing to accept a Co-founding title. Each would have their own style then.***

6) Chan Family is documented. Compared to word of mouth is likely be more believed especially in cases where the truth is hard to be found.

7) Only the Hung Sing lineage have been publicly aggressive with their history.

I am not saying what is true or not since it isn't possible. But like Fu-pow has said here (or else where) much belief must be suspended in order to accept the co-founder theory.

My points from 1 to 5 ties into a belief that Chan Yuen Wu is ignored in order to make room for Ching Cho and Cheung Yim's connection, and is assuming he is willing to take co-founder credit.

Thanks for reading!"

Good Luck!

k-no

11-06-2002, 12:13 AM

hey iron_silk,

I don't check this web site daily. I asked you to e-mail me those questions and you said you would, but you never have. Let's just get this straight; Sifu does not visit this site. This is all transmitted through us, and if we find something particularly disturbing, we will inform him.

If you still want answers, I'll print this page out and give it to him. Since early this year, he has been to Hong Kong, Canada, etc and is even now once again out of the country, so I'll have to direct the questions to him when he returns.

As for his behaviour...he is a human being, as are you and I. We aren't in sales or politics; we are kung fu men. If someone directs personal assaults at someone's character, they should be prepared for a response. If anyone is sticking up for anyone in particular, then let the ones spoken of respond if they find something offensive, not these rabble rousers. Every response I have placed here on the forum have been discussed with Sifu Lacey first and approved before making it to this public forum. However, he did tell me to control my anger enough to curb my language. =)

k

bean curd

11-06-2002, 01:49 AM

joseph been awhile, how are you ?? i still see you say much but with little content - why is this ???

you use the futshan commemorative book as a foundation of time, so does this now mean we can use the dates being used this very minute in futshan where the commemoration is happening and with the same people, and actually more elders and seniors there?? the other thing i find interesting is in one post you say we should look at the birth place for the truth and next you use the above ( futshan ) as another point of referance, which goes totally against your first main point by saying that if we want the truth look at xinhui not futshan.

so which is it, what will you use ?? the one that fits ??

you say allot of people didn't say this and didn't say that regarding training and dates, who are these people ??? when did they say this or that ?? and as you know in mainland as well as Hong Kong and also malaysia the stuff you are saying regarding the history is not accepted, the stuff that is/was being written for the west is not what is known at home !! the propagation of the 70's for the west was not for local consumption !!

i find it very interesting you address some basic writtings of david and yet give little back in response - no depth of answer, come on show foundation !!

now as to goverment records - please - are you going to use these ?? the very same people stated just last year that the wong fei hung memorial birthday was in its 145th year, which means he was born in 1856 hahaha how wrong is this!!! so your saying we can use their referance as being totally accurate - we can work it out for ourselves !!

again you come in with the buk sing name and the generation skip, i don't see the relation to that comment - are you implying that buk sing is a different CLF ??? why ??? then also can you explain to me why tam sam called himself hung sing for all his days !! now i know you are aware of why the name buk sing came up, but i don't see buk sing being somewhat seperate to hung sing - please explain, i would love to hear why, so you can educate me further and correct me for my misunderstandings.

jeurng hung sing birth/death - please - pretty poor effort on your part to say he is 179 yrs old hahaha, you are much better than this to bring a typo error into a discussion, lets also remember the old saying " don't point to a deer and call it a tiger "

nospam - it is thong time coming here - how was yours lol :D

iron_silk

11-06-2002, 02:21 AM

Sorry man! I thought I did...but now...recalling you are probably right.

So sorry and thanks!

Well to tell you the truth Lacey had see to be a representation of the reasonable side of Hung Sing Lineage given the bad after taste of "Frank."

I don't know how jo and fu pow insulted him, but instead of critizing and rebuking their claims in reasonable manner he seemed somewhat emotionally out of control and stooped to insults and slurs as well.

You made a good point that we are all human and make mistakes, but it just seem that much more unseemly from a reputable master. Especially when how reasonable he seemed previously.

On that note...no one who is part of this dispute (at this forum) hasn't been unreasonable or unnecessarily insult when arguing.

Thank you for always replying calmly and reasonably with me. I just hope you are able to do with others.

Good Luck!

extrajoseph

11-06-2002, 03:41 AM

Long time no cross swords, how are you?

You know, I did not use the Futsan commemorative book as a ¡§foundation of time¡¨ as you put it, I said they wrote it up in their book last year what was known for a long time. Cheung Yim¡¦ birth year has always been written as being 1824 and he was about 20 years younger than Chan Heung. He was born in Xinhui County, exactly in which village is still uncertain. His death is also clouded in mystery, so if we want to known more about the man, we should go and look at Xinhui instead of Futsan. That is all I was saying.

People in China who promote Futsan HSG and Wong Fei Hung are not related to the Sports Department governing the martial arts. They belonged to the Cultural and Tourist Department, with the aim to promote Futsan as the birthplace of CLF and WFH to attract tourists, so i agree with you their ¡§research¡¨ and ¡§documentation¡¨ should be taken with a grain of salt. What I was referring to was the County Record and the Provincial Record, which were written with no axe to grind.

As far as I am concerned, Buk Sing is part of the CLF family. It came through the Cheung Yim line and Cheung Yim¡¦s Hung Sing is also part of the CLF family derived from the King Mui Hung Sing line, so in my eyes, we are all one big family with a common ancestry in Chan Heung. By making Cheung Yim the founder of CLF and deny Chan Heung his rightful place, we will cut ourselves off from the main trunk of the family tree and we will fall apart. I am sure you don¡¦t want to see this to happen.

Seeing you are very knowledgeable in matters relating to CLF, it would be enlightening to hear from you what you would consider to be Cheung Yim¡¦s time of birth and death and place of death and reasons for his demise. It would be good to hear from you how you arrive at your conclusions as well.

To you, my answers lack depth in their content, I hope you can demonstrate to us how to do it properly. I look forward to your reply.

Warm Regards,

JoX

GOLDEN ARMOR

11-06-2002, 08:38 AM

Has the history ever been questioned before?

I was curious, on Sifu Lacey's site their history has Choy Ga, Lee Ga & Fut Ga combined. These are all southern systems ,where does the northern influence come from? From what I've seen of CLF there definately is a northern influence.

nospam

11-06-2002, 05:31 PM

Hey bean curd...twas a wonderous time of year. I can't count the times I put the "grrrr" in swinger baby, yeah! :D

Now that the green is gone and the snow is maken me wanna eskimo, time to find me a little...ho..ho..ho :-)

nospam.
:cool:

bean curd

11-07-2002, 01:09 AM

jox ( i like that, easier to write ) your mincing words - again, i get more dizzy on your writting than i do on roundabout, but then roundabout makes more sense .

your writing to 123 - first para - says as you have indicated, yet first sentance of second para - tells where your intention lay - maybe you need to read it again!!

chan heung and jeurng yim had much incommon - their history depends on who you wish to speak too, not who wrote words in a book. when you speak to someone personally the answers to questions come quick plus as you know eyes and actions say more than words spoken or written, so to your question on what i believe and why is very simple - it is within the tradition of my lineage and what has been transmitted to me by my family and sibuks. the writtings of people outside although interesting lay little foundation if we are not aware of the intention behind them.

to lay foundation on any goverment records or writtings is rather interesting considering the way things have been for many many years, but this is another issue - no !!! and to the county records you also know as well as i, how inacurate let alone untrustworthy they are. why look at these when we have even now still partiarchs we can ask personally on such matters - why go to books that are written by people of questionable understanding !!!!

on the buksing CLF see again you say onething now to cover up what you actually wrote, don't you read what you have written, proof reading is such a good thing on most occasions it takes away the errors, especially if you can write as good as how you can, so clarity is and would be much better on your part than mine.

on the quote with jeurng yim and chan heung, this is what i see as a contradiction. there is - as you well know, and for what reason you are not acknowledging these is a mystery to me - is that there has always been within the family ( CLF ) the issue of these two men, yet you immediatle fall on the chan heung foundation, maybe it is you who is concerned about position ??? does it mean that much to you ???

on the words you said regarding these two men isn't it a double edge sword, what if it is true that jeurng yim was as it is being said he is - founder of CLF and not chan heung then who is being cut off the tree !! could not the tree be actually hindered in its growth because the vertile ground it is in, is not being given the correct nutrients ( truth ) ???

you are so one sided on your thoughts, you will not look at what is being said, i find it interesting that you question the WHATS of jeurng yim yet what about all the discrepancies about chan heung, if we reflect inwards to our own knowledge and look into the hearts of our own belief - what will we find - is that why you are not doing such athing - only questioning the other side - not a very historical perspective research on your part.

for myself i see two stories, the question is easy yet complex and it is only complex in the personalities of pride and predjudice.

can the chan clan have their history, and also the hungsing clan have theirs ?? do they have to agree on who is write and who is wrong ?? is it one thing to say your history but another in so doing - caste dispertion on anothers, and as you know as well as i, this is what the chan clan has been doing for many many year!!!!

you also ask me what my believe is and how i have come to this conclusion and to enlighten you hahaha, how unfortunaite for you, and sad of me that i can not do this, you are your own man and you have your on teachings/traditions and also sifu, and as you know how can i seek the study for another without first asking the sifu, i know give me your sifu's name and i will ask in the correct manner :D

we are all bystanders in such matters and although it is good to debate such things, unfortunaitly you have been less than forthcoming in your character and face ( you know what i mean eh ). i know my history, but i also know that of others, who am i to tell others to not say and believe in what they do - again who are the chan clan to do this also !!! and even worse not in face but in writtings - how weak is this ???

to finish till next time - if you say we are crossing swords, i have changed mine to butterfly's - it is more southern and more akin to my liking

B/C

bean curd

11-07-2002, 01:12 AM

nasty :D

JAZA

11-07-2002, 07:09 AM

" i know give me your sifu's name and i will ask in the correct manner "

I remember someone ask for the name of bean curd and he never answer. You are so anonymous as Jox

yutyeesam

11-07-2002, 07:58 AM

Thanks Bean Curd, you and Joseph actually have helped make this clearer for me. Let me see if I can paraphrase/summarize, and please correct me if I am wrong:

I think one of the core ideas behind the source of this conflict is the birth & death of Jeurng Yim. It seems that the course of what one believes of the historical developments in CLF is dependent on his birth.

1. So, what the Chan Family believes is based on official records kept by the government.

2. What the Hung Sing/Buk Sing Families believes is different from that b/c they do not trust the government records, based on the unreliability of it in the past (and present).

If I am correct in this, then to me, it is very clear that this is a stalemate:

I don't think that the Chan Family has much hope in convincing the Hung/Buk Sing Families to believe the government records.

And likewise, I don't think the Hung/Buk Sing Families have much hope in convincing the Chan Family to not believe the government records.

If my analysis is correct, then I have to say that bean curd's advice is best, which is to believe what is passed down to you.

However, I also agree with Joseph about wanting to know the all the facts. I interpret this as: you should know what the other Families believe, and understand where they are coming from in a very complete way. You don't have to agree with it, but at least respect it.

But, I don't know nearly as much as the two of you, and I am probably simplifying something that is far more complicated. Like I said, please correct me where I am wrong or incomplete.

Thanks for reading,
123

extrajoseph

11-07-2002, 01:50 PM

Hi bean curd,

Sorry about the cut and paste answers, it is quicker this way.

¡§jox ( i like that, easier to write ) your mincing words - again, i get more dizzy on your writting than i do on roundabout, but then roundabout makes more sense.¡¨

Hmm, I can see your writing is short and precise and to the point! Thanks for the double twist starter and Jox is a good butterfly stab as well. 10 out of 10, B/C.

¡¨your writing to 123 - first para - says as you have indicated, yet first sentance of second para - tells where your intention lay - maybe you need to read it again!!¡¨

I have re-read it again but cannot see your point. Please do tell me what you think my intention was, I got dizzy reading my words and your words at the same time.

¡¨chan heung and jeurng yim had much incommon - their history depends on who you wish to speak too, not who wrote words in a book. when you speak to someone personally the answers to questions come quick plus as you know eyes and actions say more than words spoken or written, so to your question on what i believe and why is very simple - it is within the tradition of my lineage and what has been transmitted to me by my family and sibuks. the writtings of people outside although interesting lay little foundation if we are not aware of the intention behind them.¡¨

So what were the intentions hidden in their history? How do you read them?

¡§to lay foundation on any goverment records or writtings is rather interesting considering the way things have been for many many years, but this is another issue - no !!! and to the county records you also know as well as i, how inacurate let alone untrustworthy they are. why look at these when we have even now still partiarchs we can ask personally on such matters - why go to books that are written by people of questionable understanding !!!!¡¨

If government records were not reliable, what would be a reliable source of information in your opinion? What sort of people don¡¦t have questionable understanding? Who are these ¡§patriarchs¡¨ who can speak on these matters, can you name one or two?

¡¨on the buksing CLF see again you say onething now to cover up what you actually wrote, don't you read what you have written, proof reading is such a good thing on most occasions it takes away the errors, especially if you can write as good as how you can, so clarity is and would be much better on your part than mine.¡¨

If you can tell me what I need to uncover, I will try my best to correct my errors. Can you be more specific? On one hand you said I am a good writer and on the other hand I wrote like a round-about, may be I should be a traffic reporter (just joking)!

¡¨on the quote with jeurng yim and chan heung, this is what i see as a contradiction. there is - as you well know, and for what reason you are not acknowledging these is a mystery to me - is that there has always been within the family ( CLF ) the issue of these two men, yet you immediatle fall on the chan heung foundation, maybe it is you who is concerned about position ??? does it mean that much to you ???¡¨

¡§Know the source of the water when you are drinking from it¡¨ is of a concern to me. It means a lot to me to know who the real founder of CLF was. I am like a son who would like to know his real father. When some else step in without good reasons to say, now I am your new father, I get a little uncomfortable. No one likes to have the foundation shift away from underneath him.

¡¨on the words you said regarding these two men isn't it a double edge sword, what if it is true that jeurng yim was as it is being said he is - founder of CLF and not chan heung then who is being cut off the tree !! could not the tree be actually hindered in its growth because the vertile ground it is in, is not being given the correct nutrients ( truth ) ???¡¨

So what is this correct nutrient, this truth that we need to give to the tree? Can we do this without changing the foundation and the root? From the available historical information I just cannot see how Jeurng Yim can be the original founder of CLF. I have no doubt he is the founder of the Futsan Hung Sing line just as Tarm Sarm is the founder of the Buk Sing line. Can we not work with this and hold the family together and let the tree thrive? How can we switch the root and the tree trunk without killing the tree and do we have to?

¡¨you are so one sided on your thoughts, you will not look at what is being said, i find it interesting that you question the WHATS of jeurng yim yet what about all the discrepancies about chan heung, if we reflect inwards to our own knowledge and look into the hearts of our own belief - what will we find - is that why you are not doing such athing - only questioning the other side - not a very historical perspective research on your part.¡¨

Again, can you be more specific and tell us what are these discrepancies about Chan Heung that would caused him to be disposed as the founder and be replaced by Jeurng Yim? I ask these questions because I genuinely don¡¦t know, so please tell me. In most discussions there are always two sides, apart from what we believe in there are always the facts and figures and the logic of argument to come to a consensus, I am trying to work on this instead of being subjective and emotional about the whole thing.

¡¨for myself i see two stories, the question is easy yet complex and it is only complex in the personalities of pride and predjudice.¡¨

Can we put aside pride and prejudice and have unity instead of segregation? Pride can be overcome by being humble and prejudice an be overcome by looking at the facts and figures logically.

¡¨can the chan clan have their history, and also the hungsing clan have theirs ?? do they have to agree on who is write and who is wrong ?? is it one thing to say your history but another in so doing - caste dispertion on anothers, and as you know as well as i, this is what the chan clan has been doing for many many year!!!¡¨

I genuinely don¡¦t see how the Chan Clan has been casting dispersions on the Jeurng Yim Hung Sing people in the past and present. With all Dave Lacey¡¦s attack on Chen Yong Fa, I have yet to see one reply from their side. What I can read in written words I can not find any examples either, so can you give me some specific examples of their wrong doing? From Dave Lacey's writing I have a feeling that he really dislikes Chen Yong Fa and the Chen family, I hope it is not true, I thought they were friends from way back in Australia.

¡¨you also ask me what my believe is and how i have come to this conclusion and to enlighten you hahaha, how unfortunaite for you, and sad of me that i can not do this, you are your own man and you have your on teachings/traditions and also sifu, and as you know how can i seek the study for another without first asking the sifu, i know give me your sifu's name and i will ask in the correct manner¡¨

My Sifu was my father and he has passed away so you can ask me, tell me and enlighten me any time you like. I am my own man.

¡¨we are all bystanders in such matters and although it is good to debate such things, unfortunaitly you have been less than forthcoming in your character and face ( you know what i mean eh ). i know my history, but i also know that of others, who am i to tell others to not say and believe in what they do - again who are the chan clan to do this also !!! and even worse not in face but in writtings - how weak is this ???¡¨

No, I don¡¦t know what you mean by ¡§less than forthcoming in your character and face¡¨. Have you met all the faces that wrote on this forum? Do their words mean less to you because you don¡¦t know them? I don¡¦t know who you are, your profile says nothing about yourself but I don¡¦t care, your words are as good as your face to me. Matter of fact I think we can know more about a person from their words than from their face, looks can deceive as they say.

¡¨to finish till next time - if you say we are crossing swords, i have changed mine to butterfly's - it is more southern and more akin to my liking.¡¨

Then I have to get closer to you and smell your breath and feel your heart beat (figuratively speaking of course), will this be more to your liking? I guess the bottom line is I won¡¦t get an answer from you regarding details of Jeurng Yim¡¦s birth and death. I am not hopeful I will get some straight answers from you this time either, but at least I tried to have a decent conversation with you and I hope I have not add feul to the fire unnecessarily. No hard feelings.

Peace, my brother.

JoX

Serpent

11-07-2002, 04:29 PM

can the chan clan have their history, and also the hungsing clan have theirs ?? do they have to agree on who is write and who is wrong ?? is it one thing to say your history but another in so doing - caste dispertion on anothers, and as you know as well as i, this is what the chan clan has been doing for many many year!!!!

From what I can see, the Chan Clan have never said a cross word to anyone. There have been a lot of hotheads on here, but no one has ever said anything officially from the Chan Clan. This was all started when Frank McCarthy came out guns blazing, shouting down everyone (including the Chan's) and claiming to have the ultimate truth that would shake the CLF world. He was rude and offensive, Lacey has been rude and offensive, and these people are speaking officially for their families/lines. The Chan Clan has never said anything. It seems they are happy with their history, happy to let others believe theirs and happy to stay out of petty squabblings on the internet.

Food for though, isn't it?

extrajoseph

11-07-2002, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by k-no
hey iron_silk,

Every response I have placed here on the forum have been discussed with Sifu Lacey first and approved before making it to this public forum. However, he did tell me to control my anger enough to curb my language. =)

k

Hi k-no,

Now I know why sometimes I don't get an answer from you straight away but much later you come out of the blue and blasting away at me with colourful language, you are in fact getting permission from your Sifu. You are a good boy, k-no, Sifu Lacey has taught you well. No hard feelings from my part for I can be a "jox" sometimes. =) Have you got a new job yet?

Cheers,

JoX ;)

bean curd

11-08-2002, 03:16 AM

jox - ( i do like that ) good talking to you again. i am not sure how we can keep this going, not that i do not wish to, but if i know paste to what you paste to me, then you paste your reply, we will write gone with the wind part 3 hahaha, so i will keep my answers to the points i wish to focus on, hope you don't mind.

your writting to 123, i can understand how you get dizzy reading your words and mine together- not a good thing eh, but if you want the point to stay mute, then who am i to challenge, i see no need to discuss further, but it is there for others to see.

to what i look at as reliable,is no different to what you regard as reliable i have explained this already i don't understand why you want to drag it out, and as to partiarch(s) - come now lets not go fishing !! i prefer chess.

the buk sing is mute also, we know what you where saying if you don't want to be more open with it and leave it in the shadows i will leave it there with you, it was your words not mine that was dispariging and they are not mine therefore to bring into light - you do like fishing don't you.

as to being a son and someone else coming in to tell you there your father, what about those who find out that they where actually adopted and their real father isn't being given the honour of position they deserve !! i am like you, what is the truth what is questionable - yet i see just as many concerns in chan heungs history as i do in jeurng yims - yet why lay claim to one without acknowledging the other.

as i see it, it is not the case of the hung sing clan not paying homage to hung sing and not chan heung - they king lai to both - which is only natural, there is no disrespect at all from the hung sing on this. are they saying they do not wish to believe that chan heung is part of CLF - then show where they are saying this, it is you who are saying that chan heung is being put to the way side, i have not seen evidence of this in any hung sing thoughts/actions/deeds, only that they wish clarification to correct edicate for jeurng yim, and that what has been known in mainland is now coming forth into the western world, which has been long overdue.

on the nutrient of truth, now what you have written here is most interesting , are you now saying that the two brothers didn't open the school in futshan and it was first opened by jeurng yim, for you have stated that you agree jeurng yim opened the school and is the founder of CLF in futshan line , but this is not what the chan clan have said, never have they said this not even chan yiu chi has said what you have now stated , they all say it was the two brothers and jeurng yim came later and re-opened and therefore jeurng yim can not lay claim as you have stated.

on all your concerns and points on unision within the family, it is clear you have the same wish as i, yet how long do the hung sing clan have to " bow the head " and wait for the chan clan to do the " correct thing" , why is the hand of the card from the chan clan showing the writting down to the ground and not up ?? where is the gesture of family and comminality in such actions??

what can i say on your comment that you don't see where the chan clan have laid dispersions on jeurng yim, what a sad statement to come from someone who speaks so often on such matters yet doesn't see the forrest because of the trees ?? i have to say this is most unbelievable on your part to come out with such a comment - but i will wait for your response in asking me to show you where you have fallen short in this matter.

it is clear you do not know the relaitionship between yong fa and david, if you did then there would have been no need to say what you did, or as usual is this again one of your silly ways to show how david is in the wrong and yong fa is the incent - poor effort on your part againn - they have great respect for each other and on their meetings it was most apparent that they have not only respect for each other but a friendship. the skills not only of both men yet that of their respective students is seen in how not only in the way they carried each other yet how they supported each other. so just because there is question on historical accuracy does not lay want to loss of friendship or brotherhood . maybe you should go to australia and see for yourself it is a nice country with good people and a great relaxing attmosphere.

as to your concerns on pride and predjudice it is clear on this we agree, yet i am not as closed minded as you on the subject i know what my history is and i know of others history, if it is found that one is correct and the other is not,then it is clear that actions must be taken to rectify our believes, this is what i have seen in all the writtings of the hung sing clan, so why is it that no one wishes to take this in the traditional manner that it should be done - where is the talk and show of documentation from all parties. there is much more information that is not being given out as it is within the requests of seniors and elders, these are things for open face to face discussions, so why is it not happening. to say the chan clan do not need to do such athing and meet the hung sing people is not only against the commonality of the CLF family but is most unusual in its actions, why in the past did these things happen and now the chan people do not wish to do so- how strange - to also say that since on family does not speak there for they are comfortable with their history is not correct and certainly not in this situation since past actions have clearly show, it is only now things are going the way they are. with davids attack ( as you call it jox ) i would say address - is it not the head of one family we address thing to, so for david to address yong fa is well within the traditions of respect and requirment, it is not personal but is he not the HEAD OF THE CHAN CLAN and as such is it therefore not correct to address all concernt to him- if not WHO ??

it is good to see you are your own man and i am saddened by your loss, it maybe sometime ago (?) however it never goes away, the same is true from my own experaince also.

it is disappionting you feel i am negating your questions - strange i feel exactly the same from you. on jeurng yims birth and death as i told you it is what i believe, now is it correct - well at this point it appears it might be but then again might not :D ooppps did i do it again - sorry, but that is the issue jox is it not, too find out the truth?? i am open, if he was born in the early 1800's or mid 1800's we need to find out, yet not just from goverment books/records - and again i come back to the accuracy not only of the books but of how the villages/counties especially in those times where extremely unreliable and how one can use these as a foundation wether they are in agreement with my beliefs or yours is not an issue. you wash away in the childrens water the accuracy of the futshan CLF who say completly different to what the goverments/county books say, yet wasn't it there that hung sing started, so why would the current dates being used from records of the old school be of less value than that of the ones you wish to use. many 2nd generation players from hung sing lineage have always held these dates to be accurate, yet you wash them away without care.

on the chan heung issues - my where would you like to being, his early trainings, maybe his age when he assisted in his uncles school , what about when he fought in the army of even when he went over seas or maybe you could tell me where that tigers skin is - it appears to have been misplaced and actuall when did that happen again.

when you do reply to some of these questions which yes i must agree came of the top of my head, can you also give me your referances, so i don't get confused with which chan player you are using because even they don't have the same dates/time or even events - so it would help me greatly

with tasting my breath it is ok , i have not had garlic and at least my heart is beating lol

take care till next time

bean curd

11-08-2002, 03:21 AM

you say you have not seen the chan clan say a cross word to anyone - when - what decade and in referance to what ?? we are, well i am, not talking of what is happenig now but what has been going on for many decades a situation like this does not spring up suddenly even if jox tries to make out it has - he knows more than he wishes to let on - sounds like someone else i know :D

take care also

extrajoseph

11-08-2002, 01:58 PM

Hi bean curd,

Good to talk to you so soon. Since you have taken liberty with my name, I hope you know what connotation ¡§bean curd¡¨ has to the native Chinese they would roll on the floor with laughter when they hear that is your chosen name!

As usual, I get dizzy reading your long sentences all jumbled up, somehow you managed to answer none of my questions in a meaningful way with as many words as possible, it is a feat I cannot match nor do I wish to. Life is too short.

Not only you are good at saying nothing, you are also good at putting words into my mouth, so I have to tackle your paragraphs one by one again, hope you don¡¦t mind. It is so tedious I have to do it in 2 parts.!
¡§your writting to 123, i can understand how you get dizzy reading your words and mine together- not a good thing eh, but if you want the point to stay mute, then who am i to challenge, i see no need to discuss further, but it is there for others to see.¡¨

First of many non-answers to come.

¡¨to what i look at as reliable,is no different to what you regard as reliable i have explained this already i don't understand why you want to drag it out, and as to partiarch(s) - come now lets not go fishing !! i prefer chess.¡¨

So you have no criteria for reliability and you just made up these ¡§partiarh(s)¡¨. (do you have spell-check on your computer?)

¡¨the buk sing is mute also, we know what you where saying if you don't want to be more open with it and leave it in the shadows i will leave it there with you, it was your words not mine that was dispariging and they are not mine therefore to bring into light - you do like fishing don't you.¡¨

So you call it ¡§go fishing¡¨ when you don't have or want to give an answer to my questions. You are the one who is doing the fishing here, not me.

¡¨as to being a son and someone else coming in to tell you there your father, what about those who find out that they where actually adopted and their real father isn't being given the honour of position they deserve !! i am like you, what is the truth what is questionable - yet i see just as many concerns in chan heungs history as i do in jeurng yims - yet why lay claim to one without acknowledging the other.¡¨

Again, you have managed to slip away from what are the real ¡§concerns¡¨; it is the fourth non-answers in four paragraphs, well done. 10 out of 10 so far.

¡¨as i see it, it is not the case of the hung sing clan not paying homage to hung sing and not chan heung - they king lai to both - which is only natural, there is no disrespect at all from the hung sing on this. are they saying they do not wish to believe that chan heung is part of CLF - then show where they are saying this, it is you who are saying that chan heung is being put to the way side, i have not seen evidence of this in any hung sing thoughts/actions/deeds, only that they wish clarification to correct edicate for jeurng yim, and that what has been known in mainland is now coming forth into the western world, which has been long overdue.¡¨

Imagine you are sitting on your chair and your son pushes you off your chair and sits down himself, of course you are still part of the family but you are no longer sitting in your rightful place. How would you feel?

¡¨on the nutrient of truth, now what you have written here is most interesting , are you now saying that the two brothers didn't open the school in futshan and it was first opened by jeurng yim, for you have stated that you agree jeurng yim opened the school and is the founder of CLF in futshan line , but this is not what the chan clan have said, never have they said this not even chan yiu chi has said what you have now stated , they all say it was the two brothers and jeurng yim came later and re-opened and therefore jeurng yim can not lay claim as you have stated.¡¨

Don¡¦t put words in my mouth, where did I say the two Chan brothers didn¡¦t open the Futsan School before Jeurng Yim? I said in 1839, Jeurng Yim was only 15; he could not have opened the Futsan school then.

¡¨on all your concerns and points on unision within the family, it is clear you have the same wish as i, yet how long do the hung sing clan have to " bow the head " and wait for the chan clan to do the " correct thing" , why is the hand of the card from the chan clan showing the writting down to the ground and not up ?? where is the gesture of family and comminality in such actions??¡¨

Can you be more specific here? What exactly do you mean by the sentence, ¡§how long do the hung sing clan have to " bow the head " and wait for the chan clan to do the " correct thing?" Are you implying that the Hung Sing clan is bowing their heads to the Chan clan at the moment and have been doing so for the last 150 years? Are you not grossly insulting the Hung Sing people with your remark? I think Hung Sing and the Chan Clan are much better than that.

¡¨what can i say on your comment that you don't see where the chan clan have laid dispersions on jeurng yim, what a sad statement to come from someone who speaks so often on such matters yet doesn't see the forrest because of the trees ?? i have to say this is most unbelievable on your part to come out with such a comment - but i will wait for your response in asking me to show you where you have fallen short in this matter.¡¨

Again, another non-answer when it comes to specific details. You are long at making accusation but short at delivering the evidence.

¡¨it is clear you do not know the relaitionship between yong fa and david, if you did then there would have been no need to say what you did, or as usual is this again one of your silly ways to show how david is in the wrong and yong fa is the incent - poor effort on your part againn - they have great respect for each other and on their meetings it was most apparent that they have not only respect for each other but a friendship. the skills not only of both men yet that of their respective students is seen in how not only in the way they carried each other yet how they supported each other. so just because there is question on historical accuracy does not lay want to loss of friendship or brotherhood . maybe you should go to australia and see for yourself it is a nice country with good people and a great relaxing attmosphere.¡¨

Yes, some people are good at stabbing their friends and still managed to smile. Fortunately most of them have already left Australia and that is why it is a nice country with good people and a great relaxing atmosphere.

¡¨as to your concerns on pride and predjudice it is clear on this we agree, yet i am not as closed minded as you on the subject i know what my history is and i know of others history, if it is found that one is correct and the other is not,then it is clear that actions must be taken to rectify our believes, this is what i have seen in all the writtings of the hung sing clan, so why is it that no one wishes to take this in the traditional manner that it should be done - where is the talk and show of documentation from all parties. there is much more information that is not being given out as it is within the requests of seniors and elders, these are things for open face to face discussions, so why is it not happening. to say the chan clan do not need to do such athing and meet the hung sing people is not only against the commonality of the CLF family but is most unusual in its actions, why in the past did these things happen and now the chan people do not wish to do so- how strange - to also say that since on family does not speak there for they are comfortable with their history is not correct and certainly not in this situation since past actions have clearly show, it is only now things are going the way they are. with davids attack ( as you call it jox ) i would say address - is it not the head of one family we address thing to, so for david to address yong fa is well within the traditions of respect and requirment, it is not personal but is he not the HEAD OF THE CHAN CLAN and as such is it therefore not correct to address all concernt to him- if not WHO ??¡¨

The only problem is Sifu Dave Lacey do not qualify to head the Hung Sing clan, what authority has he got to negotiate with Chen Yong Fa on matter of such importance? If the elders of the clan wished to speak to Chen Yong Fa, they would have already done so a long time ago. It is not up to the ¡§General¡¨ to call the shots, your extreme naivety surprises me sometimes bean curd (I like this name it suits you down to the shaft, I mean ground).

Part II to continue

extrajoseph

11-08-2002, 02:00 PM

Hi bean curd,

Good to talk to you so soon. Since you have taken liberty with my name, I hope you know what connotation ¡§bean curd¡¨ has to the native Chinese they would roll on the floor with laughter when they hear that is your chosen name!

As usual, I get dizzy reading your long sentences all jumbled up, somehow you managed to answer none of my questions in a meaningful way with as many words as possible, it is a feat I cannot match nor do I wish to. Life is too short.

Not only you are good at saying nothing, you are also good at putting words into my mouth, so I have to tackle your paragraphs one by one again, it is so long and tedious I have to do it in 2 parts!

¡§your writting to 123, i can understand how you get dizzy reading your words and mine together- not a good thing eh, but if you want the point to stay mute, then who am i to challenge, i see no need to discuss further, but it is there for others to see.¡¨

First of many non-answers to come.

¡¨to what i look at as reliable,is no different to what you regard as reliable i have explained this already i don't understand why you want to drag it out, and as to partiarch(s) - come now lets not go fishing !! i prefer chess.¡¨

So you have no criteria for reliability and you just made up these ¡§partiarh(s)¡¨. (do you have spell-check on your computer?)

¡¨the buk sing is mute also, we know what you where saying if you don't want to be more open with it and leave it in the shadows i will leave it there with you, it was your words not mine that was dispariging and they are not mine therefore to bring into light - you do like fishing don't you.¡¨

So you call it ¡§go fishing¡¨ when you don't have or want to give an answer to my questions. You are the one who is doing the fishing here, not me.

¡¨as to being a son and someone else coming in to tell you there your father, what about those who find out that they where actually adopted and their real father isn't being given the honour of position they deserve !! i am like you, what is the truth what is questionable - yet i see just as many concerns in chan heungs history as i do in jeurng yims - yet why lay claim to one without acknowledging the other.¡¨

Again, you have managed to slip away from what are the real ¡§concerns¡¨; it is the fourth non-answers in four paragraphs, well done. 10 out of 10 so far.

¡¨as i see it, it is not the case of the hung sing clan not paying homage to hung sing and not chan heung - they king lai to both - which is only natural, there is no disrespect at all from the hung sing on this. are they saying they do not wish to believe that chan heung is part of CLF - then show where they are saying this, it is you who are saying that chan heung is being put to the way side, i have not seen evidence of this in any hung sing thoughts/actions/deeds, only that they wish clarification to correct edicate for jeurng yim, and that what has been known in mainland is now coming forth into the western world, which has been long overdue.¡¨

Imagine you are sitting on your chair and your son pushes you off your chair and sits down himself, of course you are still part of the family but you are no longer sitting in your rightful place. How would you feel?

¡¨on the nutrient of truth, now what you have written here is most interesting , are you now saying that the two brothers didn't open the school in futshan and it was first opened by jeurng yim, for you have stated that you agree jeurng yim opened the school and is the founder of CLF in futshan line , but this is not what the chan clan have said, never have they said this not even chan yiu chi has said what you have now stated , they all say it was the two brothers and jeurng yim came later and re-opened and therefore jeurng yim can not lay claim as you have stated.¡¨

Don¡¦t put words in my mouth, where did I say the two Chan brothers didn¡¦t open the Futsan School before Jeurng Yim? I said in 1839, Jeurng Yim was only 15; he could not have opened the Futsan school then.

¡¨on all your concerns and points on unision within the family, it is clear you have the same wish as i, yet how long do the hung sing clan have to " bow the head " and wait for the chan clan to do the " correct thing" , why is the hand of the card from the chan clan showing the writting down to the ground and not up ?? where is the gesture of family and comminality in such actions??¡¨

Can you be more specific here? What exactly do you mean by the sentence, ¡§how long do the hung sing clan have to " bow the head " and wait for the chan clan to do the " correct thing?" Are you implying that the Hung Sing clan is bowing their heads to the Chan clan at the moment and have been doing so for the last 150 years? Are you not grossly insulting the Hung Sing people with your remark? I think Hung Sing and the Chan Clan are much better than that.

¡¨what can i say on your comment that you don't see where the chan clan have laid dispersions on jeurng yim, what a sad statement to come from someone who speaks so often on such matters yet doesn't see the forrest because of the trees ?? i have to say this is most unbelievable on your part to come out with such a comment - but i will wait for your response in asking me to show you where you have fallen short in this matter.¡¨

Again, another non-answer when it comes to specific details. You are long at making accusation but short at delivering the evidence.

¡¨it is clear you do not know the relaitionship between yong fa and david, if you did then there would have been no need to say what you did, or as usual is this again one of your silly ways to show how david is in the wrong and yong fa is the incent - poor effort on your part againn - they have great respect for each other and on their meetings it was most apparent that they have not only respect for each other but a friendship. the skills not only of both men yet that of their respective students is seen in how not only in the way they carried each other yet how they supported each other. so just because there is question on historical accuracy does not lay want to loss of friendship or brotherhood . maybe you should go to australia and see for yourself it is a nice country with good people and a great relaxing attmosphere.¡¨

Yes, some people are good at stabbing their friends and still managed to smile. Fortunately most of them have already left Australia and that is why it is a nice country with good people and a great relaxing atmosphere.

¡¨as to your concerns on pride and predjudice it is clear on this we agree, yet i am not as closed minded as you on the subject i know what my history is and i know of others history, if it is found that one is correct and the other is not,then it is clear that actions must be taken to rectify our believes, this is what i have seen in all the writtings of the hung sing clan, so why is it that no one wishes to take this in the traditional manner that it should be done - where is the talk and show of documentation from all parties. there is much more information that is not being given out as it is within the requests of seniors and elders, these are things for open face to face discussions, so why is it not happening. to say the chan clan do not need to do such athing and meet the hung sing people is not only against the commonality of the CLF family but is most unusual in its actions, why in the past did these things happen and now the chan people do not wish to do so- how strange - to also say that since on family does not speak there for they are comfortable with their history is not correct and certainly not in this situation since past actions have clearly show, it is only now things are going the way they are. with davids attack ( as you call it jox ) i would say address - is it not the head of one family we address thing to, so for david to address yong fa is well within the traditions of respect and requirment, it is not personal but is he not the HEAD OF THE CHAN CLAN and as such is it therefore not correct to address all concernt to him- if not WHO ??¡¨

The only problem is Sifu Dave Lacey do not qualify to head the Hung Sing clan, what authority has he got to negotiate with Chen Yong Fa on matter of such importance? If the elders of the clan wished to speak to Chen Yong Fa, they would have already done so a long time ago. It is not up to the ¡§General¡¨ to call the shots, your extreme naivety surprises me sometimes bean curd (I like this name it suits you down to the shaft, I mean ground).

Part II to continue

extrajoseph

11-08-2002, 02:05 PM

The continue story of a pair of jox holding a bean curd:

¡¨it is good to see you are your own man and i am saddened by your loss, it maybe sometime ago (?) however it never goes away, the same is true from my own experaince also.¡¨

This is the most sensible paragraph of the whole posting, I wish there are more of them.

¡¨it is disappionting you feel i am negating your questions - strange i feel exactly the same from you. on jeurng yims birth and death as i told you it is what i believe, now is it correct - well at this point it appears it might be but then again might not ooppps did i do it again - sorry, but that is the issue jox is it not, too find out the truth?? i am open, if he was born in the early 1800's or mid 1800's we need to find out, yet not just from goverment books/records - and again i come back to the accuracy not only of the books but of how the villages/counties especially in those times where extremely unreliable and how one can use these as a foundation wether they are in agreement with my beliefs or yours is not an issue. you wash away in the childrens water the accuracy of the futshan CLF who say completly different to what the goverments/county books say, yet wasn't it there that hung sing started, so why would the current dates being used from records of the old school be of less value than that of the ones you wish to use. many 2nd generation players from hung sing lineage have always held these dates to be accurate, yet you wash them away without care.¡¨

I am not washing away without care, in fact I am asking you, ¡§what are the dates recorded in the old school?¡¨ Let us see the old records, the older the better. I am disappointed at you playing these silly games of hide and seek which you called fishing. Show foundation and come clean!

¡¨on the chan heung issues - my where would you like to being, his early trainings, maybe his age when he assisted in his uncles school , what about when he fought in the army of even when he went over seas or maybe you could tell me where that tigers skin is - it appears to have been misplaced and actuall when did that happen again.¡¨

I have personally spoken to an old man in King Mui village who has sat on the tiger skin, you can still find him and many older clansmen who have seen it if you go there. The skin disappeared during the Cultural Revolution when there is a lack of security in the village. As for Chan Heung help teaching in his uncle¡¦s school when he was 12, what is so unusual about that? Is this all it takes to disqualify the Chan Family document as a fake? Have you or Sifu Dave Lacey seen and studied the documents first hand? Why don¡¦t you ask someone who has before making a premature judgement about their authorship? Better still, if you say Sifu Dave Lacey and Chen Yong Fa are still good friend, they can contact each other and compare notes. Isn¡¦t this a more ethical way of doing thing before going public?

¡§when you do reply to some of these questions which yes i must agree came of the top of my head, can you also give me your referances, so i don't get confused with which chan player you are using because even they don't have the same dates/time or even events - so it would help me greatly¡¨

I have no idea what you are talking about here, so I will let this one pass.

¡¨with tasting my breath it is ok , i have not had garlic and at least my heart is beating lol¡¨

Do you want me to taste your breath? Is this what you are saying? What a queer thing to ask! I am afraid I am not your type =). But it is nice to know that your heart is still beating, please continue.

You know I can¡¦t wait until the next installment of verbal diarrhea between us, are you sure you can keep it up bean curd? Nudge Nudge Wink Wink!

Cheers and take care of yourself,

JosephX

bean curd

11-09-2002, 12:02 AM

well what can i say 2 parts, i am honoured, alas i cannot give you the same back.

i will address on part of your post(s) that i am sure will suffice for those who have been reading out little muse, but i have to say the only change that i would have needed to do, is to change the opening of bean curd to jox and that would have been more than enough, just look in the mirror jox, you are no different, well you are acutally worse but hi who am i to judge.

bean curd

11-09-2002, 12:37 AM

ok i will now address you jox and we will see the character you really are and how you want to decieve with mixed words to clarfiy your own ego.

you have said i do not speak with clarity, we will also see how you do not either, yet use words to imply your vertue as a scholar of knowledge.

jox says -

" Good to talk to you so soon. Since you have taken liberty with my name, I hope you know what connotation ¡§bean curd¡¨ has to the native Chinese they would roll on the floor with laughter when they hear that is your chosen name!"

and now the breakdown.

1. " Good to talk to you so soon " - it is also good to hear from you, but i have to say, why so much !!

2. " Since you have taken liberty with my name " - no this i do not understand. it is clear you have taken offence to my using this as further on you show your true colours, but it was actually you who used it first - joX. now i admit i do not use upper case on the " x" but it is clearly you who use the "jox". so why are you saying and implying i am taking liberties. first off if i am correct ( and i am sure you will correct me ) your use to use xtrajoseph, now you use jox. i only used it since you used it first and used it as a signature. i had no intent whatsoever to use it other than that, it was quicker to write jox than extrajoseph or xtrajoseph.

i looked at it as this jo = joseph, and x = extra, it is you with your sad remark towards jox and bean curd in them, that has diminished your signature, you have scorned yourself and now you have brought that scorn on me for using it in the fashion i have - this is typical of how you have conducted yourself through many writtings.

3. " I hope you know what connotation ¡§bean curd¡¨ has to the native Chinese they would roll on the floor with laughter when they hear that is your chosen name!
- and now we see your true character even more. it is clear you have know idea of the spoken word or the written word in relation to marital arts, it is more than obvious you have not heard the words mentioned within gung fu of people being called " beancurd sifu " or for that matter " gungee sifu ".

you show a pure distaste and dishonour many by your sad, childish remark to my callsign and disparige it further by trying to make out it is not of good standing in the chinese community as an item of worth or a word used to distinguish honour of many great players in the past.

i wonder if wong fei hung shared your expression of using the word, and it is actually from his expericance and his words that i took the name, so now you laugh at me do you also laugh at wong fei hung. do you actually know how important beancurd is to the chinese community, and how it is just as prevelent in daily life as rice is, you are showing your true colours just in this paragraph jox or is joX better !!!

how is it that for example " mouldy beancurd " was a favourite of not only the emporers but also for the local community who devised more than a 50 ways to make it, with great skill and foresight. why do you mock that history, no i can see how you can, you are doing it now with CLF history so nothing is sacred to you - is it jox (joX).

beancurd has found so much favour in the chinese community that it is regarded as an equivelent to peking duck ( or are you know going to slander that also ).

and now you wonder why i am elusive with my replies how can i educate you when you are so blatant in your understanding and in your writtings.

so when i said you are fishing it is purley academic - you elude to one thing and then run from it, because you want to say " show me where i have said this" you are no diffferent to one who takes up a posture and then when the fist comes, you back down and yell , " hi what are you doing i didn't want to fight" - such character eh jox ( joX)

so where to we go from here, well let me play your game jox (joX).

you scorn my call sign to show others how i am of no worth, then let us look at your name shall we. i am sure you must have been in HK in the 80's or maybe your where not, and you don't know or are unaware to use the name joseph was not a good joice, and why is this, why did people laugh and not want joseph as a name, well let me show you.

joe as you know in cantonese = early and seph = release, so if we put joe + seph togethr we have (joseph ) = early release.

now what does this mean jox ( joX) well you did ask me to educate you so here i am doing so and since you are your own man you can appreciate the learning. early release = pre ejeculation, so joseph i have to say you do live up to your name.

what i find more interesting is you call yourself " extra joseph" so you will now have to educate me, how can you pre - pre ejeculate ???? do find it frustrating for such a thing to happen ??

you see extrajoseph, why should i or anyone take what you say on history with anything more than a grain of salt, and being the devils advocate here, why should anyone take mine also.

words are futile in such matters and i have seen nothing said to either change my opinion and i am sure yours. so how can we do this, easy - let us meet with your documents and i will arrive with mine and we shall see who has more foundation on such matters.

you have said so much yet you have not shown any proof, in your words you say i have said little, yet why do your words show more weight than mine, you have shown no proof only used paper words, so where do we go from here !!

now lets expand this idea and look at it from a CLF perspective. a meeting is the only way with abitrators ( and if you are aware of such matters ) you will know that such things are independently controlled also. so meetings and proof are required not paper tiger words like what you are useing or for that matter anyone else, proor is the key.

well i hope i have written clearer for you, and i have to say, your score on my abilities to write are of no concern to me, since when did we decide we would follow your standards - can you show me, and also here is another show of your great character - you are really a good figure to look up to - i do not write with correct spelling so you attack me for this short fall - shame on you tut tut

one more thing - david does have authority within the buk sing and hung sing clans for what he is dong, so on that point he is within his given standing, you play such games jox (joX) and with little content, you ask for clarification of matters yet when they are given you insult them. another example is of how i showed you clearly the relationship between both men and look how you replied, such a disgrace, so explain to me why i should even share other things with you when you return the knowledge with such destaste and of little consequence.

till next time - wink wink nudge nudge say more lol

extrajoseph

11-09-2002, 01:25 AM

What's up my friend, nudge nudge wink wink say no more.

It is not writing jox with the lower case x that showed your intention in making fun of my name, it is what you said in brackets that showed your true colour. Two can play the same game, so if you cannot stand the heat then you better not start the fire in the first place.

I think all this is getting boringly personal; can we get back on the real issue of history? You said to serpent the following quote sitting my name:

"you say you have not seen the chan clan say a cross word to anyone - when - what decade and in referance to what ?? we are, well i am, not talking of what is happenig now but what has been going on for many decades a situation like this does not spring up suddenly even if jox tries to make out it has - he knows more than he wishes to let on - sounds like someone else i know"

Now this is another classic example of your accusation without substantiation. You cannot give us one example of the Chan Clan saying a bad word about the Hung Sing people in recent time, so you turned around and say it happened in the past and I would know about it. Well my friend, I have news for you. As far as I know there is not one cross word in public between the two groups either in present time or the past that I am aware of. If you know some historical instance then please showed us some evidence, otherwise you are just trying to stir up hatred between two groups of people again. BTW, do you do CLF?

I have no intention of being personal with you, so stay focus on the issue and not the personality. No hard feelings (sorry about that, I did it again!) my friend.

Peace,

JosephX

extrajoseph

11-09-2002, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by bean curd
one more thing - david does have authority within the buk sing and hung sing clans for what he is dong, so on that point he is within his given standing,

Hi bean curd,

If what you said above is true, then show us a written authority of consent from the buk sing and hung sing clans for all the things he has said in public on his webpage. I call your bluff, my friend.

JosephX

bean curd

11-09-2002, 02:33 AM

joseph your lucky day, i was just checking to make sure i did not write without clarity, although i must say i did find some - sorry - and look what do i find but a little more writting from you, how nice.

see joseph it is clear all you want to do is argue. the reason i wrote in brackets what i did, about your shortening of your name was that i was actually acknowledging your skill in the abbreviation, there was no intent other than that, maybe it is clear, you look at your own soul and see it in others. and as too heat lol, i didn't realise the fire was on or i was in the kitchen, maybe you need to put some more wood on the fire !!!

i also find it interesting you have not addressed my last post in your usuall fashion - how strange - truth hurt !!!!

i also find it interesting you say you do not want to be personal with me yet this is all you have been, the rest has been but a ruse on your part, you now ask for me to keep it on a perspective when it was actually you who wished to go in another direction, by your words, again you are showing you wish to make out i am the one causing the elusiveness not you - or are we both to blame !!!

i find it most enjoyable that you ask for proof, where is yours !!, what an old man tells you this about the tiger skin, now i have heard Mao used for other atrocities but now also this, so if it is true, there are so many questions i could ask on this matter but why bother your reply on that subject said more than enough, and isn't this what it is all about, what if i say this and that - don't you get the point to the whole conversation, i thought you wanted to be educated, yet when i try to, you don't or won't listen, if you want proof it is so easy, we meet, we show our documents and then the outcome is made, so easy yet all you want to do is banter here and not in person, what fruit comes from such folly .

please look at my previous post and read it "s l o w l y " and then you will see that this is all that is requiered, by you keeping this facade up just shows your dark intentions.

you ask me to clarify so much, yet when you write, even when it is elusive, i know what you are saying!! so why do you need me to clarify if you are from the generation you say you are??? you know full well what is between the lines, what is your intention for me to spell it out for you, it is like a proffessor asking another proffessor of the same understanding to go back to basics, for what purpose is this required, when it is clear it is not needed.

you appear not to understand but i do respect you for your generation isn't it 5th, and it is this fashion that i have written, it is no different in the martial books written in earlier times on CLF,if you know the skills then there is not much need for writting, short poems speak to those who understand, surely i don't have to educate you on this also !!!!

if i say there has been issues before, and you say there hasn't - then how folly is that, if you are not aware of such things happening ( which i have to say surprises me greatly ) , then what is it worth my saying it has happened and it is even now or will you also deny this !! , once you where told some time back, that a buk sing senior spoke to a chan senior and your come back was that since you had not heard it therefore it must not been true, yet it did happen !!! so let me understand this, if extrajosepsh says it did - then it must have !!!!, if extrajoseph says it did not - then it is fantasy !! or at best a lie !!! - hhhmmm good debating skills hahaha.

why do i not use names for this situation above, for respect and i do not wish to use names !!! now if you are aware of the situation then you will know who i am speaking about and then it will clearly show you that i know what i am talking about, in this fashion i do not cause disharmony nor do i bring issue to others and finally it is kept in the family, to clarify further it did not happen at home but away and this is all i will say on this subject, but i am sure you will bring the names out, you appear to do it often, you bring peoples names up to show you know what is going on, who these people are and that you are worthy of people to listen to you, yet isn't the silence between words have more value !!!!!

i also find it so incredible you are now trying to say i am putting a wedge between the two clans, you are clearly a hypocrite , what about when much earlier on in this sad affair ( many months ago ) you where the one trying to put a wedge between the hung sing and buk sing clans by your words and intention- what you are so pure - please extrajoseph, again you try to discredit with such words - you truly are getting desperate.

now why do i need to show you an authority for david , all you have to do is actually ring/write/phone the buk sing and hung sing clan elders they will verify for you, that is much more proof than a piece of paper, and don't you agree much more personal, again extrajoseph it is so easy for you to do, and with your generation you will easily have access to such people.

and a finale note - you ask me if i do CLF, now i will answer, but if i do will you answer my question on why you have asked could it be because i am also known for other skills !!! or do you wish to cross hands!! to your question the answer is YES !! oh by the way do you do CLF ??? i know i have asked a second question but please excuse me for such ignorance

although you say you do not want to go personal you track record shows otherwise, i await your most treasured response

extrajoseph

11-09-2002, 05:02 AM

¡§i find it most enjoyable that you ask for proof, where is yours !!, what an old man tells you this about the tiger skin, now i have heard Mao used for other atrocities but now also this, so if it is true, there are so many questions i could ask on this matter but why bother your reply on that subject said more than enough, and isn't this what it is all about, what if i say this and that - don't you get the point to the whole conversation, i thought you wanted to be educated, yet when i try to, you don't or won't listen, if you want proof it is so easy, we meet, we show our documents and then the outcome is made, so easy yet all you want to do is banter here and not in person, what fruit comes from such folly.¡¨

First let me congratulate you on improving your English and your spelling out of sight, see what little extra effort can do. With regard to the tiger skin, the proof is in the people who saw its existence and I pointed out to you where you can find these people whom I have spoken to, so I don¡¦t know how much more evidence you required. If you have documents, show them here so everyone can see and not just me. What have you got to hide? Showing them to me only will be a useless exercise.

¡§you ask me to clarify so much, yet when you write, even when it is elusive, i know what you are saying!! so why do you need me to clarify if you are from the generation you say you are??? you know full well what is between the lines, what is your intention for me to spell it out for you, it is like a proffessor asking another proffessor of the same understanding to go back to basics, for what purpose is this required, when it is clear it is not needed.¡¨

I have spell out my intention many times, there is no need to read between the lines. Let me say it again: There is only ONE Choy Lay Fut, let us accept Chan Heung as the founder and Jeurng Yim founded the Futsan Hung Sing branch and get on with our unity for the next millennium. Stop this drive for segregation and stop this spread of hatred for each other. We have much to gain by working together, not against each other.

¡¨if i say there has been issues before, and you say there hasn't - then how folly is that, if you are not aware of such things happening ( which i have to say surprises me greatly ) , then what is it worth my saying it has happened and it is even now or will you also deny this !! , once you where told some time back, that a buk sing senior spoke to a chan senior and your come back was that since you had not heard it therefore it must not been true, yet it did happen !!! so let me understand this, if extrajosepsh says it did - then it must have !!!!, if extrajoseph says it did not - then it is fantasy !! or at best a lie !!! - hhhmmm good debating skills hahaha¡¨.

With your talk of the past masters hating each other, you are being irresponsible and down right disrespectful of dead people. Cut it out! What families do not have arguments? But they always made up in the end and allow the common good to prevail, don¡¦t pour fuel where there is only ember.

¡¨why do i not use names for this situation above, for respect and i do not wish to use names !!! now if you are aware of the situation then you will know who i am speaking about and then it will clearly show you that i know what i am talking about, in this fashion i do not cause disharmony nor do i bring issue to others and finally it is kept in the family, to clarify further it did not happen at home but away and this is all i will say on this subject, but i am sure you will bring the names out, you appear to do it often, you bring peoples names up to show you know what is going on, who these people are and that you are worthy of people to listen to you, yet isn't the silence between words have more value !!!!!¡¨

If you say silence between words have more value, then please practice what you preach, that goes for your mentor as well.

¡¨i also find it so incredible you are now trying to say i am putting a wedge between the two clans, you are clearly a hypocrite , what about when much earlier on in this sad affair ( many months ago ) you where the one trying to put a wedge between the hung sing and buk sing clans by your words and intention- what you are so pure - please extrajoseph, again you try to discredit with such words - you truly are getting desperate.¡¨

I am trying to tell you and your mentor not to proceed with segregation drive. I am trying to show there is no evidence for this mad idea of another founder, it will destroy the CLF family and with it a valuable part of our tradition. You are putting a wedge between the two clans by supporting your mentor¡¦s point of view which threatens the very existence of CLF as a unity. There is no need for me to discredit Sifu Dave Lacey, he has been doing it quite nicely himself. What do you think his next installment will achieve? I came down heavy on the segregationists because I care, not because I am getting desperate.

¡§and a finale note - you ask me if i do CLF, now i will answer, but if i do will you answer my question on why you have asked could it be because i am also known for other skills !!! or do you wish to cross hands!! to your question the answer is YES !! oh by the way do you do CLF ??? i know i have asked a second question but please excuse me for such ignorance¡¨

If you do CLF and care about CLF then you know it is not about me wanting to cross hand with you. It is about something much more important than fighting.

¡¨although you say you do not want to go personal you track record shows otherwise, i await your most treasured response¡¨

I trust my response has not been personal. It is not you I care about, it is the future, for my son does CLF and I hope my grandson will practice it as well. It is a wonderful art and I hate to see it being destroyed by some guys who are driven by pride and prejudice.

Cheers,

JosephX

iron_silk

11-09-2002, 05:02 AM

OH WHY DON'T YOU TWO JUST GET A ROOM!!!??? (joking) :D

bean curd...I still don't get the name...do you mean tofu?

and why bring Wong Fei Hong into your fight? I'm sure he didn't translate it into "bean curd" in fact I doubt if he savy English back then. :D (being funny...not meant to be taken seriously...or am I?)

monk weed

11-09-2002, 07:30 AM

Hi y'all

Sorry to butt into this discussion but I really do want to understand the whole history thing. I'm not taking sides but I have some questions.
If cheong yim is the founder of clf, what style of kung fu did chan heurng teach?What did he call it? Where did the "choy and the Lee" come from? Did chan heurng send cheong yim to Futsan or did Ching Cho? I have heard that after training with Ching Cho Cheong yim went back to king mui. Is this where Cheong yim and Chan heurng came up with the name choy lee fut? Did the two colaberate on the system?
My questions are sincere and not ment to start trouble or choose sides. I have read many histories and almost every branch has a little different spin to it.
Thanks from a novice.

11-09-2002, 05:50 PM

iron-silk-

Just for your info and have nothing to do with the CLF history thing. One of Wong Fei Hung nickname is MR Tofu/beancurd or Tofu sifu, because of his easy going nature at his golden years.

DF

iron_silk

11-09-2002, 06:21 PM

DF

Thanks! I was kind of kidding but it was still interesting to know.

monkweed

I would answer you questions but I am more than sure that there will be tons of replies that will answer plus overshadow with their personal emotional extreme attacks.

But for thought...you could read the questions I posted earlier that will question the logic behind story that some are trying to push jeong hung sing's history.

Main Points re-emphasised:
- once his master always his master
- even if desire to create a system then why not create his OWN, why try to get in on CLF that was established well already
- they try to explain ching cho + jeong yim connection for Fut of the CLF but ignore Chan Heung's uncle who taught him Fut ga kuen which is where the Fut came from
- a system is a creation by the one...a vision of one...anymore would only cause conflict
- every generation that teaches to the next adds something or adapts to their own flavour - why would that constitute as being part of the creation

I'm sure there is more to be said...but I figure I restate some stuff since it's probably going to be ignored by the next post already

extrajoseph

11-09-2002, 07:39 PM

I for one have found your points most valid; they certainly have not been ignored in my mind. The segregationist used 3 things to promote a change in history,

1) Introduced Ching Cho as an extra teacher and say this happened because the Chan Clan was not willing to teach an outsider.

2) Played down and even ignored Chan Heung’s uncle as you have mentioned, so they can justify the Fut in CLF.

3) Blamed it on the arrogance of the Chan Family for the break away.

You have hit the nail right on its head, but your logic would not make any difference to someone already been told what to believe in. Sadly, a lot of people in this world think with their faith and not with their head.

JosephX

CLFNole

11-09-2002, 08:03 PM

Well why not Choy Lay Chan? Afterall the "Choy" comes from Choy Fook. The "Lay" for Lay Yau San. Finally the "Fut" comes from Chan Yu Wuen, makes perfect sense. Give two teachers namesake respect and leave out the other. Oh yeah he was a Fut Gar stylist so we use "Fut" instead.

Is everyone sure he practiced Fut Gar? Some say Chan Hueng had a beginning in Hung Kuen.

Just something to think about.

Peace.

iron_silk

11-09-2002, 10:48 PM

Hi there!

I've read many of your post but never replied to you. You seem like a honest reasonable type of person.

I was aware of your points when raising mine BUT wanted to keep it short and sweet, and to merely wait for somone to bring it up.

1) Chan Heung would not use "Chan" because his own last name is Chan and he wish not to give people to wrong idea of elevating his name to his masters. Certainly even if during his life people would (or at least by some) believe him, generations after would turn this idea around...as how we are all discussing or speculating ideas already on other such topics.

Others from Hung Sing branch would also argue that Fut is because how his two masters style came from shaolin background. Though I still refer to the point above.

2) Hung Gar instead? Well I think it's because many people seem to practice that style with CLF hand in hand. Certainly there are many masters that master both style.

Also there is a lineage out there that has very similar name of sets as of Hung Gar system, suggesting somewhere a long time ago a person of great influence borrowed aspect of Hung Gar into what they taught.

Hung gar is more popular than Fut gar.

And there could be many other ways people get confused...but we are just not aware of. Dispite some people's belief.

Thanks!

bean curd

11-10-2002, 12:17 AM

i find it strange that everytime i reply to your posts you give the impression that i am a cause of trouble, when it is clearly you.
it is the same with my callsign " bean curd " you elude to something you know nothing about to make yourself appear knowledgable yet you trip over your own feet and then look up at me as if i am the culprit - pretty poor effort i must say.

so let us again look at how you twist words to suit your own thoughts and in so doing wish to give the impression you are the shining light pushing out the darkness, when in fact you are shining your light to make others go blind so they cannot see.

unlike you, i do not need to paste so much and give so little back with such distortion.

two examples are all that is needed.

paste one = " With your talk of the past masters hating each other, you are being irresponsible and down right disrespectful of dead people. Cut it out! "

ok now you are making me out to look like the trouble maker when in fact you actually asked me to give you an example of when such a thing happened. also show me where i said they
" HATED each other " i said " they SPOKE to each other " clearly not " HATE " as you have stated, is this how you speak to others??? you take so much out of context it is sad really why you would do such a thing, now when i first addressed this, it was to clarify that such things had happened in the past and unfortunaitly it is happening again. i also brought you into it, to again respect the fact that you are a 5th generation player who would know such things. now you then addressed this of me and asked me to show you proof of such a situation since you claim you where not aware of it, when i do so, you react in the manner above.

so extrajoseph , why do you ask me to clarify then attack me for answering your question, is this how you normally conduct yourself when you inquire about something and the reply is not to your liking. why is it also you distort the answer to make it out to be bad when it was not said in that fashion ??? again i kept it hidden and i told you why, yet it is YOU who decided to bring it out into the open. my only suspicion is that all you wanted to do in this manner was to react in the fashion you have and that it to make yourself try to look good , yet infact you have only made matters worse, you say you are looking for the truth yet you don't keep to it when it is given to you just a day ago, what hope do you have of such things more removed !!!!

and now another showing of extrajosephs nature to cause disharmony and troubel by changing the issues

paste 2

" What exactly do you mean by the sentence, ¡§how long do the hung sing clan have to " bow the head " and wait for the chan clan to do the " correct thing?" Are you implying that the Hung Sing clan is bowing their heads to the Chan clan at the moment and have been doing so for the last 150 years? Are you not grossly insulting the Hung Sing people with your remark? I think Hung Sing and the Chan Clan are much better than that.

and now we see another dark twist for you. you must remember extrajoseph i am of the understanding you are 1. 5th generation, 2. chinese. 3. conduct business in china. so when i wrote what i did on a. bowing of heads,and b. giving the card upside down, it is clear you have missed the whole thing, is this also how you look at history, pick and choose what you want to suit your belief do not look at the complete picture and expect us to agree with your logic. now do i have to breakdown what i meant by this also, since you clearly missed it - strange.

for one to " bow their heads ' is not to KOWTOW. where did i say this, is this what you do when you meet people ?? so when they bow to you with mutual respect and on an even keel you take it that they are submitting to you ??? what an ego you have !!! you told me once some time ago, when we where going to discuss the gau dai pa, that you couldn't go intot he conversation because you had business in china, so how come you also missed what i meant by using the card with the writting upside down, do you not understand what this means, why do i have to spell it out for you, when you must know what it means or do you, is this also like you history perspective, you only see what you want but don't understand the meaning ????

your conduct here with regards to the history of CLF has clearly fallen short if what we have discussed so far is how you conduct stuff in your mind. do i have to write so much and SPELL it out so clearly for you to understand, if i need to do this am i not insulting you because of your position with the knowledge you say you have.

if not,then it is clear also you are playing a game, and the game you are playing is to make out that whoever doesnot follow your guidelines, must be a trouble maker and wishing to cause the distruction of CLF - how pathetic is this extrajoseph.

everything i have said or eluded to, has been with a pure mind and heart, it has only been darkened by your hak sum, this is seen just in the last two posts i have put to you on my signname, and the above, all innocent writtings only twisted by your mind - what a figure for CLF you are, who are you to speak down and question others when you carry yourself in such a manner.

now you bring up the two brothers on another thread, is there no more for you to bring up you have to regurgitate the same silly points, you brought this up before how their histoy differs, i find it intersting you don't bring up how they also are the same, just look at yeurng yims' birth date as an example - you truly are grasping at straws now.

as usual i will await you most highly intellectual response - i can hardly wait, it is getting cold in here, are you sure the fire is on

take care for now

bean curd

11-10-2002, 12:49 AM

your pun on my signature i found amusing, i take no offence , why should i we have never spoken, so i will wait to see how you act towards me before i reply in the same fashon.

to your questions, i will not paste because i take it as time wasted but i hope you will look at your questions and see where my answers relaite to them.

1 and 2. this is actually incorrect to say he would not use his last name. why ? first off we have to realise that chan heung was taught by his father first and mostly by his uncle. now there is a question on what he was taught. as extrajoseph tried to point out that the two brothers ( lacey ) differ in their history we also have the same issue here. some chan players say his uncle taught him hung kuen,second some chan players said it was siu lam kuen, and thirdly some chan players distinguished this by saying is was actually fut gar kuen.

now here is the delema - originally it was never known what chan hueng was taught, all it was know was that it was gung fu, it only came apparent in the 70's that we learnt more, allot of things happened in the 70's !!!!

now to the name - it is not uncommon for people to use their respective names of their families or of their sifu to state the pai they are using. examples of this is mok, lau, tai, shei, tan, lay, hon family skills. it is also incorrect to state that if chan used his own name it would take away from his father and uncle. in tradition it is normal for such things to happen that when one looks to the son they see the father etc, and expecially within a martial community. this is evident for example on the hung gar kuen where we have three kin, wong tai, wong kei and wong fei all experts in there skills, consolidated by the famous wong fei hung yet the father wong kei ying was a sup fu canton. so to say that these things would loose their favour and position is not withstanding.

so what in effect clfnole asks is an extremly strong correct question.

i have written much today and do not want to bore you or those who have graced this little thread but i will address two other points quickly and yes i will not spell them out to much as is my way.

ching cho, is not an anomoly, within a book written by a great CLF player who has sadly passed away at a young age, he states clearly the connection with ching cho however in this writting it is stated that it was chan heung who learnt form ching cho after meeting choy fook and lau san. we have another writter who once stated ching cho was made up and now it is found within the chan writtings ching cho was choy fook, yet upto this time ching cho was missed in the writtings of the chan clan !!!

the tiger skin is another good example, here we have extrajoseph say he met someone in chan village that tells him it was there and he sat on it, and that there are also others who know of it, yet this is only knew if such a thing did happen, no others have ever mentioned it from chan village, but i suppose i will have to visit chan village again to see this old man.

now the strange thing is this, it is said that chan heung killed the tiger in old age with his own bare hands and gave it to the chan association,but the chan assocation is not in chan village, the one in question is without doubt outside of the homeland and in america, but there are quite a few chan associations and noone knows which one and what happened to the skin, yet now extrajoseph tells us it has travelled to chan village.

i could go on,but the point in all this is pure and simple, to clarify such issues only takes the elders to talk about it not for us and especially certain people :D who do not wish to let the issue be addressed in the correct manner that has happened in the past, even if they have not heard of it happening before.

i hope you now take this on, i am not asking you to believe it nor am i asking you to ignore it, the plain and simple fact these are issues and only small ones that have been around for long time, i also hope you don't tell me where my spelling or diction is not correct i would be so disappointed j/k

take care

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 02:23 AM

Hi bean curd,

Obviously you have no intention of stopping, so I will stop it for you. Think whatever you like, I have expressed my feelings clear enough for all to see and I do not wish to waste any more words on someone like you who wants only to argue for argument sake.
There is no pleasure in nit picking for me so let us move on. You can either do this or shiver in the cold.

JosephX

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 04:01 AM

I am afraid bean curd has no idea what he was talking about.

1) His father never taught Chan Heung any kung fu. He was taught by his uncle.

2) Chan Heung was taught Shaolin Kung Fu by his uncle and in those days they don¡¦t have names and that is why it was known at various times as Hung Kuen, Fut Gar Kuen, Sil Lum Kuen and even Hung Fut Kuen. The names stood for Kung Fu from the Shaolin Temple, not names of a particular style.

3) Chan Heung did not called his style Choy Lay Chan because he wanted his disciples not to glorify their own names but to uphold the teaching of Fut or Buddha (Shaolin Temple). By not using his own family name he set an example for us to follow. If Jeurng Yim did studied with Ching Cho for 8 years, you would imagine he would know his teacher's real name and called it accordingly, if he was indeed the founder.

4) Ching Cho was Choy Fook and this was clearly documented in the Chan Family manuscript, which was not made available until recently. The reason was given in clfma.com together with a photo of the relevant page.

With regards to Chan Heung and his life, for example, whether he killed a tiger or not, where and when, why don¡¦t you ask the Chan Family instead of listening to all sorts of rumors? You will get your answer from the horse¡¦s mouth.

If you have the opportunity then go to King Mui and ask them there. Go to Futsan on your way back and then the new Buk Sing Chi Jo Gwoon in Guangzhou as well like I did last week. You can then compare notes and make up your own mind.

I did my research, so I will stand by what I said.

JosephX

bean curd

11-10-2002, 04:53 AM

"what happened joseaph Was your previous post a little pre -mature? Are you finally living up to your namesake?"

you know joseph i have read your posts and it is becoming apparent there are more than one of you posting - is this true or do you have split personalities, just look at the two posts above which says it all.

see i put out some stuff and immediatly you say good bye lets leave it as an empasse and get on with it, then you come back with the great statement i know nothing about what i have said lol and what do you then do come out with such dribble.

my answers to your questions -

1. you are wrong totally, i just didn't expand on the time he was with him - you are so funny.

2. this has to be one of the most rediculous statements i have ever read from you, and to actually go into why you are wrong would take sometime, it is so obvious this confirms you do not understand these situations.

3. more dribble do you realise by what you have just stated you have insulted many many pai, how shamefull.

4. how convienent for you, i said the same thing that all of a sudden the once denied ching cho is now stated by the chan clan they have miraculously found it - but you not so long ago stated many times and actually laughed and scoffed at the mere mention of ching cho and even made fun of another person for mentioning his name - you are such a hypocrite. when they come out and say they made a mistake - what will you do them - i think we know.

and now to the tiger skin, how easy you brush it all off, doesn't go your way so you cry, the info i have came from chan players so what now !!!!!!

it is so nice of you to state the great opening in siu buk, what was also happening in futshan too eh. you are a strange one, what by saying this we are to believe you lol, how many knew of this and who else was there, give me some names i mean you always do, i know who went too - please who pathetic.

you did your research and i did mine so we stand the same, again i was more than willing to leave it alone like it should always have been, but as usual you have come back - you are so predictable

need more fire it is getting cold - your call

CLFNole

11-10-2002, 10:54 AM

Truthfully I don't buy the whole we will pay homage to two sifus using "choy" and "lay" but we will skip "chan" because it is our own surname and instead us "fut" since we are to glorify buddha. Why not just have four words then and pay respect to all teachers involved.

Too much of the explanations here are just convenient ways to make one's own point. The other thing which i brought up along time ago is the Ching Cho/Choy Fook thing. How convenient that only this year it was discovered (likely under a Kwan Gong statue..hehe just kidding) that Ching Cho was in fact Choy Fook. This are very convenient revelation for people who before said that he was a fictional character in a novel. I though Choy Fook's nickname was Rotten Head Choy because his head was scarred from the burning of Siu Lum Gee. The must have had a lot of nicknames.

I am not of the opinion that Chan Hueng is not the founder and Cheung Yim is, my CLF comes from both lines. Obviously both did a great deal for the style since there are numerous proponents from each today arguing over this rather ridiculous point. To me the underlying thing here is that each side is trying to make out that there side or branch is better.

The Chan side always goes to the internal forms and the number of forms they have and people think that must make them better. But we all no its not the number of forms you know but how well you know them. On the other side a branch with less forms and no internal forms can feel inferior to some degree and focus more on their fighting prowess to gain fame and recognition.

Either way both sides have made huge contributions to the style. No one will ever know whose kung fu was better, Chan Hueng or Cheong Yim. Just because someone created something doesn't mean someone could have been better at it. There is always someone out there that is better than us so arguing about it is futile.

The main thing is that CLF practioners on a whole should group together as one family under CLF not who came up with what and what day was this person born.

Peace.

Fu-Pow

11-10-2002, 12:18 PM

Let me make one statement on this argument.

The true history of martial arts in China (CLF included) will never be known. It is filled with secrecy, secret societies, hearsay, fictional stories, ego, politics, fictional novels, religious affiliation and "unaffiliation" and most of the practitioners were illiterate so we don't even have any notes to compare until the last couple of centuries. It is a tangled web that you will never, ever unweave.

If you don't believe me go to the Jeet Kune Do message board. Here we have an art that is only around 40 years old and people are having the same arguments that people are having here. Except that art even had the benefit of a literate creator and a media driven society. Yet the same questions get asked: Who has the "true" art? What happened when? Who was the senior student? How good was Bruce Lee, really?

History is interesting to talk about, it makes for good discussion. It ranks right up there with sex, politics and religion. But much like these topics everyone has there own opinion and very seldomly is there a "correct" view. History is an emotional topic because our history helps to define our place in the world. No one wants to have the rug pulled out from under them. Unfortunately when people start getting emotional about a topic of discussion, the "discussion" quickly becomes an "argument. "

And argument is emotional and emotions are not logical. So the arguing will go round and round as each side tries to "win" the other persons emotion. Words can be very useless things at these times.

If we can learn anything from our kung fu predecessors it is that we must all seek our own "way" or Tao. You must find what works for you and that includes your beliefs.

Our predecessors also believed in becoming and creating well rounded, capable individuals not only in the techniques and strategies of warfare but in terms of spritiual and moral development, calligraphy, dit da healing, herbology, music, etc, etc, etc. We should be instilling these things in our students and classmates and creating the next generation "to uphold and enliven the ways of Shaolin."

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 12:39 PM

I had doubt when this manuscript page first turned up as well, so I emailed a copy to a friend who is a Chinese language expert. I explained the situation to him and asked for his opinion. This is what he has to say:

1) The language used is consistent with someone who had a pre-June 4th education, so it would unlikely to have been written recently.

2) If they want to use this as a way to deny the existence of Ching Cho and make things up they would have said more, instead it was like a throwaway line, so it could be genuine when viewed in this context.

But he cannot say for sure unless he sees the real copy and look at the paper quality and the rest of the writing.

As for the names, most monks have a monk's name as well as their real names and nick names, so it is not surprising that Choy Fook would have a monk's name as well as his nick name and his real name.

I think the Chan Family would have too much to lose trying to make things up. I will give them the benefit of doubt. Well, that is just my opinion.

I agree with you, we should group together as one big family and work together and learn from each other.

JosephX

iron_silk

11-10-2002, 03:48 PM

Can none of you write simple point form? Or at least address individuals in separate emails?

I am sorry...I didn't really refer to any points made by Bean Curd b/c I didnot take the time to read numerous (length and number) messages posted between you and Joseph.

What I did say about your signature (I assume you mean "Bean Curd") I do not see how it is a pun...considering it does mean tofu. I believe DF explained it to me on that.

I can help but notice that many of you mix facts with your own fantasy. It would take a long time to go through and proper reply to just so many different messages. That was why I liked making simple points and addressing each one without bringing personal feelings and confusing it with facts.

*takes deep breath*

You believe what you like to believe, but you have all failed to proper address any of my questions or reply.

You merely stated "I don't buy it" well I am sure you would put YOUR own last name but does not mean Chan Heung would. He is paying homage to his sifu and elevating his name to HIS SIFU would not be seemly. Besides it sounds more like a proper name to end with Fut rather than Choy Lay Chan....

All the other styles lack a name...so uses their own as to state his own family style that he created it...but in case of CLF is different b/c of different purpose. Much like comparing oranges and apples...it's still a fruit but different.

OK THIS MESSAGE IS FOR ALL OF YOUR OUT THERE!

if you have a point...MAKE A POINT (i.e. in point form) and not mess it up like the way aggressive own agenda pushing individuals.

Good luck to you guys cause I am sure there will be more than enough people to reply to you.

iron_silk

11-10-2002, 03:53 PM

By the way...the writing of Ching Cho was always there except no one ever checked.

But I am glad to see how you are more than ready to support an nameless CLF or not practicioner.

LOOK WE CAN GO ON AND ON ALL NIGHT LONG AND THIS ISN'T GOING TO STOP...YOU KNOW THAT...EVERYONE KNOWS THAT!

Or else it would have stopped when Frank showed up.

Point form...I might reply

I am sorry to sound like a "hit and run" type but when person is "talking and talking" and not really listening...I'll just step out until they are ready to communicate.

Good Luck...I'll be taking a break.

iron_silk

11-10-2002, 03:58 PM

Fu Pow

I shamely did not read your entire post...BUT I have quotedy ou before and found your new approach to be respectable and I agree to the extent of what I read.

Good one man!

k-no

11-10-2002, 04:19 PM

Again, the Chan Family's cheerleader (or should I say mascot) rallies forth and opens his big mouth.

Again we see evidence of your word twisting and attempts at brainwash, extrajack-ass.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a complete idiot, that could only mean that with my families supposedly "casting dispersions" with the Chan family history, you seem to be the only one taking offence.

Case in point, here is a quote from you:

"If CLF was established in 1836 and Cheung was the founder (as declared by the CLF Union in Hong Kong and reported by Sifu Dave Lacey) that would mean CLF was founded by a 12 years old kid!

Anyone care to explain?"

YES, I will explain...explain that you are either not even bothering to read the articles or are purposely twisting words to discredit the information given. If YOU HAD READ the articles, you would KNOW that the 12 year old Chan Heung discrepancy was TAKEN from the CHAN FAMILY'S STORY, which WE are casting DOUBTS on. Yet here we have you attempting to change the facts by attributing this discrepancy to something that Sifu Dave Lacey has made up.

This is just one example of your acts of manipulation and trickery.

Does it ever stop Joseph? Don't you want to "know your father"? Would it be so bad to find out that a paternity test was not available back then so you could have been either man's son? If you listened instead of opened your mouth and exposed your forked tongue, you may learn something of value.

I would stay and play more, but I have part II of this article to format and post tonight or tomorrow morning.

Nice of you to ask, I have temp jobs here and there, but nothing permanent that allows me to go to kungfuonline at my leisure, such as yourself.

Ta ta, and let the good times roll.

k

monk weed

11-10-2002, 04:20 PM

Fu pow is right! We will never know the true history Choy Li Fut. I have seen and researched all three styles of clf and all are awsome! And the the people who are teaching and passing the art to the next generation are in their own right great men. For what ever anyone thinks of Sifu Lacey or Sifu Chen yun fa, both men have great histories and in my opinion are concidered clf greats. Same goes to Lee koon hung*, Doc fai wong and all the others out there teaching clf. Even though the history would be great to know it still falls way sort of how well you know your clf.(to quote clfnole).

*I realise that lee koon hung passed away some time ago.

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Fu-Pow
Let me make one statement on this argument.

History is interesting to talk about, it makes for good discussion. It ranks right up there with sex, politics and religion. But much like these topics everyone has there own opinion and very seldomly is there a "correct" view. History is an emotional topic because our history helps to define our place in the world. No one wants to have the rug pulled out from under them. Unfortunately when people start getting emotional about a topic of discussion, the "discussion" quickly becomes an "argument. "

I agree with you here up to a point. We must not give up searching for the truth even though it may never be found. Much progress has been made in understanding how sex, politics and religion work because we refused to give up even though these things are difficult to handle. I feel we can do the same with history if only we could be less emotional and more rational about the topic. It is tricky but I feel it can be done given the right environment. May be a dicussions forum like this one is not the right place after all. But look at the brighter side, we have no trolls up to date, maybe history is so boring, no one wants to touch it! Lets talk about Chan Heung's sex life, his religion and politics instead! I read somewher he liked Jeurng Yim when he was a young boy (just joking)!

JosephX:D

illusionfist

11-10-2002, 04:32 PM

If you read this thread, just read inbetween the lines. There is a lot being said that is of "generation" importance and it is from this frame of reference where the answers come. Now whether or not this debate is set up in a concise manner, well obviously at first glance it doesn't appear that way. Quite simply JoX, you bring up things and then when you are called on it, you either change the subject, go personal, etc. Bean Curd is just reciprocating the method you are using everytime you post. If you were forthcoming with your ideas and proof, i'm sure BC would be equally as forthcoming with his. Just look at everytime you asked a question of Jeung Yim, a question was asked from BC about Chan Heung. You didn't answer and beat around the bush, so what did you get? Hence the circular argument continues. The argument you purportedly are trying to avoid is the same argument you are propagating.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that you are a 5th generation player of CLF. Well being in that position, you would understand whats going on with posting only what is required for you to know the situation at hand without airing out the dirty laundry. This is good Mo Duk. Doing otherwise is just not proper decorum, especially for someone of higher generation. Then of course there are only a few things that need to be said in order for you to understand because your generation status is used as a benchmark for your knowledge. If these critieria are not evident, than what is to be said about the knowledge gained from supposed 5th generation status? Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

This is from an outsider looking in, plain and simple. Seeing these threads are disconcerting because there are always those involved who are not willing to "put up or shut up" and just want to beat around the bush. Even in your last post JoX, you said you are giving the Chan's benefit of the doubt (i guess in reference to the supposed discovery made by them). Were you even as remotely open minded towards the Hung Sing branch and their history? What about the proposition that was made by Dave Lacey on his site, and his assertsions on the usage of the name Choy Lay Fut? Did you give the same benefit of the doubt or even lend credence to the idea with unbiased eyes, even for just one second? If you did, then good for you, but your stance shows otherwise. So if there is something that makes you think contrary, just illustrate those views and let the people decide for themselves, plain and simple.

Based from your posts in recent months, you are the one at the forefront to discredit the other sides. So in this fashion, you should be the one that should display the "preponderence of the evidence" considering that all of the other CLF lineages (outside of Chan) do not give the same weight to supposed Chan family transmisions and secret documents because there are no outside references that give credence to anything that is stated. From what i have gathered, they (the elders, being 5th gen you should be one, why weren't you there?) have met on this and they are working on a discussion level trying to piece together the history. Is this not a good thing? To me it would seem quite simple to just present your evidence, even for just ACADEMIC sake, and see how it holds under the scrutiny of evidence to the contrary. Its just the proper way to do things and thats the only way BOTH SIDES will learn. Its mutally beneficial for everybody, as long as their is unity and petty lineage squabbles are checked at the door. This is how a system gets stronger. Are you willing to put the advancement of your art before your ego?

Even though i have no vested interest in any of this, i still see these changes in your stance over the past few months as a reader on this board. Please dont take offense to this, i'm just calling it like how i see it. Any clarification is greatly appreciated.

Peace :D

Serpent

11-10-2002, 04:41 PM

Here's an idea. Why don't Bean Curd and Joseph each make a post with no personal information or disparagements at all. Just a list of questions, say 5 each to start?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Just like that, no preamble, no qualification, just straight forward questions.

Then each can post a reply with 5 answers, exactly like that. What do you think? Consider the five most important questions in your mind and list them, then answer with concise, clear, straighforward answers, backed up with whatever evidence you think relevant.

I bet you can't do it! ;)

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 04:43 PM

I hope you have your Sifu's permission to use such a colorful language. Must be nice to be able to take the mickey out of me in your spare time. May be history is up there with sex as Fu-Pow says after all.

Now, tell us why your Sifu and his brother came to such opposing views. Please use less colorful and more straight forward language. we really like to know.

I can't wait until the General's next installment, I wonder who gets the Guernsey this time. Please drop us a note and a link here when it is done.

Welcome back, let the good time roll! Baby.

JosephX

k-no

11-10-2002, 04:49 PM

Hey there Illusionfist,

Couldn't have said it better myself. As we can all clearly SEE, Joseph now completely SIDESTEPS what I just said and uses differing sibling views and reverence to Sifu Dave as his retort.

Jox Jox Jox...empty words pal. Believe me, my Sifu has much more than colorful language for you if you decide to ever renounce being a keyboard coward, so he wouldn't mind me taking liberties, especially at your expense. Don't worry about my Sifu and his brother's views. Worry about being exposed as the silver tongued devil that you are.

The update will come out soon, hold on to your Depends.

k

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 04:58 PM

Are you hinting that I may get the Guernsey, wow happy days are here...

JosephX:D

Hi Illusionfist,

Your chosen name suits you well, you gave an illusion you are unbiased, yet you know where to strike with your fist. Welcome aboard.

JosephX

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 05:01 PM

I like the idea, what do you say bean curd? I have nothing on the next couple of days. Would you like to be the moderator, serpent?

We are going to have some fun!

JosephX

Serpent

11-10-2002, 05:27 PM

Cool.

Bean curd?

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 06:02 PM

I have some suggestions for setting up the ground rules:

1) 3 questions per round, it is easier to concentrate, one each from the contestants and one from the judges.
2) Set a limit to the words we can use per question, say 50?
3) No outside help or interference.
4) Each round to be completed in 24 hours.
5) Limited to 5 rounds.
6) Select a panel of judges from different schools and agree on their choice before hand. I think 4 plus your-self would do.
7) The judges have to give reasons for their scoring and a CV of themselves.
8) The loser agrees to take a leave of absence from this forum for 12 months.

JosephX

Serpent

11-10-2002, 06:09 PM

I think a 24hr turnaround is unworkable, just because some people might not have the same net access as others.

A panel of judges is a little too formal. I won't give a cv of myself as my anonymity on here is important to me. On top of that, and more importantly, I'm certainly not qualified to make any judgements. I'm just interested in the discussion.

I think that a simple back and forth of straightforward questions and answers would be a lot more constructive than name-calling and b!tching.

Also, I'm not sure we could ever claim someone a loser or a winner, though we might get some clarity on issues of history.

I think your points 1, 2 and 3 are good though.

iron_silk

11-10-2002, 06:50 PM

Serpent

you echo my sentiment

but much more straight forward...

Personally I think everyone is catching whatever bean curd and jo got!

iron_silk

11-10-2002, 06:54 PM

Hey man! Thanks for printing out my questions.

any words yet?

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 07:07 PM

Serpent

11-10-2002, 07:27 PM

Oooh! Time warp!

Joseph, read back a few posts. ;)

k-no

11-10-2002, 08:07 PM

hey there iron_silk

Dai Wei Sifu is in HK, or they may be in Malaysia already. He'll be back sometime next week, and when I find the time next week I will see him personally and review these questions with him.

k

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Serpent
I think that a simple back and forth of straightforward questions and answers would be a lot more constructive than name-calling and b!tching.

Sorry about the double posting, just trigger happy and roaring to go. what you said is easier said than done. Well, it was worth a try, besides I will be too busy mopping up Dave Lacey's verbal darrhoea throwing at me by his side kick k- no any time now. Seeing there is no response from our friend bean curd, lets do it another time, there is a lot of emotion running here right now.

Catch you later,

JosephX

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by iron_silk
I don't know how jo and fu pow insulted him, but instead of critizing and rebuking their claims in reasonable manner he seemed somewhat emotionally out of control and stooped to insults and slurs as well. You made a good point that we are all human and make mistakes, but it just seem that much more unseemly from a reputable master. Especially when how reasonable he seemed previously.

How come iron_ silk can get away with criticising your Sifu being "emotionally out of control and stooped to insults and slurs as well", and being "much more unseeming from a reputable master"? Yet I can't say one word right. Have you got a "thing" for me?

Is it OK if I use the same phrases to describe your Sifu when you do your next posting for him?

I look forward to your answer.

JosephX:D (hey just kidding!)

extrajoseph

11-10-2002, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by k-no
Jox Jox Jox... The update will come out soon, hold on to your Depends.k

You mean my bean curd?

JosephX:D

iron_silk

11-11-2002, 12:14 AM

I think I've always conducted myself in a reasonable and mature manner without resulting to low blow insults.

Me and K-no seems to have a good understanding. I like that!

Jo

Even though you are very knowledgeable and often reasonable (Like I have said before and not only on this board) you also seem to lose yourself emotionally wise and confuse valid points with paragraph after paragraph of...hmmm...babble sometimes. No offense to you seeing as how we never had any problems and you helped me out in the past. Just that we all have a weakness I guess.

I think that is the major reason as well...and that goes for the rest of you as well!!! ya hear??? ;)

K-no

Thanks for the update!

cha kuen

11-11-2002, 12:15 AM

So much controversy in every style... *sigh*

kung fu books (http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=taichimaster06&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=25)

k-no

11-11-2002, 12:59 AM

Here we go again, ring around the rosie...

OK JoXstrap, let's humor your query, although you know darn well what the differences are. Guys like iron_silk can be descriptive in a critical way without being downright disrespectful. They can also do this with the true aim of finding truth, instead of you, whom still have no answers regarding your twisting of words.

Do I really have to explain? Have you already forgotten that you are an a-hole? Of course I have it in for you my friend, you can't help yourself but to try to sully my Sifu's reputation, and I have to get out my mop bucket to clean YOUR "verbal diarrhea" up. By the way, spell check works great.

k

extrajoseph

11-11-2002, 02:05 AM

I saw your Sifu last night in the Guanyin Temple banquet, he sat with George and his Melbourne students. Nearly 300 people were there with our host Master Soo. I said hello to him but he didn't recognised me. He looked old and tired, maybe less anger and a better sense of humour may help. Laughter does wonders for our health. Smile, you're on Candid Camera!

JosephX:)

k-no

11-11-2002, 02:27 AM

And your point for not introducing yourself in person and making your debate then in person, and not here in your roundabout way?

Why the hell would he recognize you? You've got no desire to find the truth Joseph. Perhaps he looked tired because your silly games are tiresome.

k

bean curd

11-11-2002, 03:12 AM

only two questions need to be answered -

1. what is the unquestionable foundation to state that the chan clan history is correct and therefore irrefutable , and

2. why is it that two clans of the three CLF - hung sing and buk sing believe in the same history and it is only the chan clan that have ever believed in theirs ???

joseph have you put the fire on yet, i am freezing, what a host you are :D

extrajoseph

11-11-2002, 03:55 AM

OK my friend let us start from the beginning again, and this time please stick to the rule of a good debate. Before answering, can you be more precise with your questions so we can be on the same wavelength.

1. what is the unquestionable foundation to state that the chan clan history is correct and therefore
irrefutable ,

What do you mean by Chan Clan history? Can you spelling it out?

2. why is it that two clans of the three CLF - hung sing and buk sing believe in the same.

There are 3 Hung Sing written with different characters although sounding the same, which one was you referring to? Chan Clan is also a Hung Sing, Buk Sing is also sometimes referred to as Hung Sing. Can you be more specific? If you know the Chinese characters, please refer to them.

Looking forward to hearing from you. I am in Asia at the moment and our timing may be different, so be patient. Catch you later.

There is no need to be satirical at the end, that is how we got off the rail last time. Not that I don't have a wacky sense of humour but let us stick to the first 3 rules as agreed with serpent earlier.

JosephX
:D

extrajoseph

11-11-2002, 03:59 AM

I haven't see him for 3 years now so I don't expect he will remember me. Funny thing Master Soo talked about the unity of the CLF fraternity and we all clapped.

Listen my friend, I am having a serious debate with bean curd right now, so if you don't mind I will ignore you for a while.

Catch you later.

JosephX

extrajoseph

11-11-2002, 04:03 AM

I haven't see him for 3 years now so I don't expect he will remember me. Funny thing, Master Soo talked about the unity of the CLF fraternity and we all clapped.

Listen my friend, I am having a serious debate with bean curd right now, so if you don't mind I will ignore you for a while.

Catch you later.

JosephX

bean curd

11-11-2002, 05:14 AM

joseph(s) - answer the questions in whatever manner and interpretation you feel is applicable , it will be appropriate at this time , is this not why we have rebuttles.

to rules - there is no need for them,
i am sure if we get out of hand or someone feels either of us is moving off the track a quick post to push us in the correct direction will suffice.

extrajoseph

11-11-2002, 12:57 PM

Hi bean curd,

I can¡¦t answer your questions because I am not sure what you are asking; you have to define the terms before I can give you a proper answer.

For example, what do you mean by Chan Clan? To me we are all Chan Clan because we can trace our tradition somehow back to Chan Heung. You may interpret it differently, so unless you clarify your questions we cannot go on. Open interpretation will invariably lead to rebuttals because we will be talking about different things, so why not try to avoid that in the first place and wasting our time and get ourselves hot under the collars?

Over to you.

JosephX

iron_silk

11-11-2002, 01:24 PM

Seems like there is too much lack of objectivity to ask a proper question.

I mean what is a question?

Why a person would be born on this date? Or would all records by Y makes it all right for everything---which entails so much other crap that no clear answer can be drawn.

Simple and to the point. Despite few words-it should be the subject matter as well. Amazing what one sentence can pack no?

BUT this thing is about you guys so...I'll try to stay clear.

Sorry for butting in!!!

extrajoseph

11-11-2002, 09:59 PM

Thank you for not butting in, if we get into any difficulties, we will seek the help of our moderator, serpent.

It seems to me, in bean curd's mind there is:

1) A Chan Clan.

2) A Chan Clan's version of history.

3) A Hung Sing Clan.

4) A Buk Sing Clan.

5) Hung Sing and Buk Sing believed in the same. (same version of history, I presumed, but I don't know what it is).

I must know what they are before I can answer his questions properly.

I am not being pedantic, what he asked is confusing for me. Example 1, both Vince and Dave Lacey are Buk Sing Masters yet they have a different interpretation of history, so I need to know what version bean curd is refering to. Example 2, bean curd thinks there is one Hung Sing, I know of three in the evolution of CLF, so I need him to tell me which one he is referring to when he says "Hung Sing and Buk Sing believed in the same".

This word "Clan" is also very confusing. In Cantonese it is called "Gar Jeok" (or Jia Zu in Pinyin). Now we don't use this word in CLF, we use the word "Gwoon" or "School" insead. We called ourselves CLF Buk Sing Gwoon or CLF Hung Sing Gwoon. We don't say CLF Buk Sing Gar Jeok or CLF Hung Sing Gar Jeok, because it implies we have a different ancestor. Sometimes the word "Jia" or Family" is used instead, as in Chen Jia Taijiquan or Chen Family Taijiquan and Yang Jia Taijiquan or Yang Family Taijiquan. We all belong to one clan with many schools or families.

I can only give a clear answer to a clear question, when a question is not clear I think the answerer is entitled to get a clarification from the questioner. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

JosephX

bean curd

11-12-2002, 01:12 AM

joseph, we have talked so much about this and now we get down to what everybody wants - well some lol, and what do you do - play games.

the discussion has always been from the david history, why ?? this is the one you have always questioned and yet this is the one that is favoured by the hung sing and buk sing clans, as he has been permitted to voice such things for the hung sing and buk sing clans, why is it i have to repeat myself so much, please can you retain some of the stuff others say instead of hearing your own voice.

now if you want to play on words then fine, but do it in your time, mine is precious, and as i love to exchange words with you and humour i do not spend all day on computors.

as to school and clan - what a mute point, in conversation you always use the one word to describe things, your vocabulary must be limited !!!, your lack of chinese is becoming so obvioius.

now to spell it out a bit clearer -

bean curd

11-12-2002, 01:27 AM

we will address the three gwoons, as you like to call them from what we have been discussing for ages now using clan and it only becomes an issue now hahaha what a joke , now
when the questions come up, you now want clarification when you didn't need it before and understood what i meant by hung sing, buk sing and chan clans.

so here we go read it slowley and absorb so we can get on with it, and so you will stop wasting precious time !!!

since we are talking about historical differance then it is clear we need common names to address who says what and where the differance occurs, yet we already done this but again you play games.

hung sing = juerng hung sing futshan fut gar jing jung, those who believe juerng hung sing is founder,
buk sing = tam sam fut gar jing jung named from the lineage of juerng hung sing of the futshan fut gar jing jung, who believe that juerng yim ( juerng hung sing ) is the founder.
chan family clf = chan family who believe in chan heung as founder, and that jeurng hung sing (yim) is student of chan heung.

so now this has been clarified can you answer the questions.

extrajoseph

11-12-2002, 03:55 AM

Thank you for the clarification, I now understand what you are talking about better, the only problem is your assertion that ¡§two clans of the three CLF - hung sing and buk sing believe in the same history and it is only the chan clan that have ever believed in theirs¡¨ is not true.

The only person I know who believed Juerng Hung Sing is the founder of CLF is Sifu Dave Lacey. I have not seen anything written in Chinese to say people from Buk Sing and Futsan Hung Sing believed Juerng Hung Sing is the the founder CLF, they say he is the founder of Futsan Hung Sing, that is all.

Sifu Dave Lacey said the CLF Union in Hong Kong made a declaration to that effect, but I have not been able to get hold of a copy. Tsui Kwong-Yuan did not say Juerng was the founder in his Chinese history, it only said so in its English translation, I presumed it is just bad translation. Futsan Hung Hung Gwoon did not say so either in their journal last year, nor any Buk Sing journals that I have seen.

My research so far shown everyone believed in the same history with the exception of Sifu Dave Lacey, please show me evidence in Chinese to the contrary, otherwise your questions made no sense.

JosephX

Fu-Pow

11-12-2002, 11:25 AM

Futsan Hung Hung Gwoon did not say so either in their journal last year, nor any Buk Sing journals that I have seen.

However, the Singapore Hung Sing Gwoon reunion program from last year supports what General Dave is saying. I have a feeling there is some kind of political split going on here that we might not even be aware of yet.

extrajoseph

11-12-2002, 12:12 PM

I have seen the program, there is no mention of it on an official level, please point me to the page if I have mistaken. Like everywhere else, there is a lot of factions and vested interest within an organisation. Until we see an official statement, we can only assumed the political split has not taken place.

The point I am trying to get across is that bean curd's assertion that Futsan Hung Sing and Buk Sing have a different interpretation of CLF history is simply not true. The majortiy of people still like to see ourselves as one big CLF family with the same ancestry.

For how long this will continue, no one knows. The world is breaking down fast and so are families. We can only try our best to hold it together for as long as possible.

JosephX

Fu-Pow

11-12-2002, 12:59 PM

I don't have the program in front of me, when I do I'll give you the exact page. However, it's I do know it's near the back of the program. There is a version both in Chinese and English. I'm not sure who wrote it either.

extrajoseph

11-12-2002, 07:05 PM

Thank you Fu Pow in advance, I must have missed it and my copy is left at home. Can yo think of other similar material? I am always interested in why people want to fragment the CLF family and what are the political undercurrent that is causing it. I know it is not about historical truth.

All this politiking is a result of CLF is undergoing a revival at the moment. Just the last month, there are international events in Flourida, KL, Futsan and Guangzhou and at the end of the month King Mui as well.

bean curd

11-13-2002, 02:15 AM

ok joseph it is clear you don't want to debate if you did you would have addressed my two basic questions and we could have got on with it.

you are re - gurgitating everything all over again, this has got so boring, and typical off you.

so david sifu is the only one you know saying this - now who is lying - my friend lol.

you always want documentation, well i tell you what and this is so easy because you can get it direct, or as usual will you be afraid to do the right thing - which is clearly your character!!

why don't you just give me your details and i will organise with all the 5th generation elders of the tam sam buk sing gwoon and the juerng hung sing gwoon etc, and yes i can do this, i assure you!!!! who have PERMITTED david sifu to write what he has, and you can meet them in HK or Canton or Futshan or Siu Buk or even Chan village if you like, and you can see for yourself, and at the sametime you can show them all your historical evidence - which i am sure all would agree is only fair !!!

just to clarify for you joseph so you don't get confused - david sifu has had PERMISSION from the elders to do what he has done, this is not something that has come just from him, if you know about him and his lineage you would know that if he did not have the support of not only his teacher Kong Hing sifu, but also the elders just of the buk sing gwoon he would be in severe trouble, so your little twist on david sifu only being the one to say this is totally unfounded.

for those who are reading this,

to make you also understand, these elders who are 5th generation and above do not read english, hardly look and ever touch a computer and only write in chinese, so one would have to ask why joseph is saying these things and for what reason.

to finish off joseph, if you want to see it all, it is all there for you to see, and since the elders have permitted david sifu to do what he has done, i can assure you that those you would meet would not need david there!! the historians would do all the talking needed.

all i need from you is one of two words = YES or NO !!

anything more than one of those two words will show your real character, but alas i will wait your pathetic response

:D

extrajoseph

11-13-2002, 05:31 AM

The elders I talked to don't even know what Sifu Dave Lacey has written because, as you said it yourself, they can not read English and has little access to the internet. Get him to put what he said in Chinese in one of the association journals and you will get some reactions.

I go to these meetings and I know what goes on. I can assure you he has no authority to speak on behalf of any Hung Sing or Buk Sing Associations or CLF Union. These people are not so stupid as to have someone like him running loose. Normally they don't bother to write in English anyway, if they do, there are far better English writers they can use. You are giving an impression that everyone approves Dave Lacey and it is just not true.

You keep saying Dave Lacey has had permission from the elders to say what he said, then please give us the evidence. We are still waiting.

I don't want to debate you because your questions showed you are already set in your thinking before I can give you my answers, so what is the point in continuing? You are not really interested in history, you are only interested in attacking me.

Hi Fu Pow,

One of my friends contacted me and say it was a reprint of Tsui Kwong Yuan's article and I have seen it before. Thanks for the lead anyway

Cheers,

JosephX

Serpent

11-13-2002, 06:29 PM

I find it very hard to believe that any respectable elders would be pleased with the pages and pages of verbal attacks on Dave Lacey's website. If they don't read English then he has pretty much free licence to write what he likes, telling them anything. That's assuming they have any idea at all. Joseph seems to think otherwise and no one else has proved one way or the other. Joseph, according to his own testimony, has spoken to the elders themselves.

If Lacey was really interested in discovering history instead of pushing his own agenda then surely his points would be concise and clearly laid out, with no particular need to attack anyone? Mo duk anyone?

Joseph is regularly citing sources (at least locations of his knowledge) and is claiming no particular authority other than his own research. He is happy for anyone to come along with any other evidence to either back up or refute his claims, but no one will.

This really is a circular argument of the most frustrating kind.

While Joseph has been quite personal in the past, in truth he is only being honest. Dave Lacey's return attacks have been considerably more juvenile and often incoherent.

However, in recent posts on this thread Joseph has been straightforward, non-inflammatory and open. And it seems that he is the only one being like this. And it is obvious from other masters' sites that not everyone (even within buk sing, let alone other lines) agrees with Dave Lacey. Even his own brother has a history claiming quite different things!

Also, Dave Lacey claims that he won't enter into a debate on these forums and will only comment on his website. A convenient ivory tower from which to cast aspersions. And yet we have members such as k-no and bean curd posting on this very forum, running everything by Lacey first, which is rather hypocritical to say the least.

Just a few things to consider.

yutyeesam

11-13-2002, 10:05 PM

I really have no place whatsoever in this debate, so please forgive my ignorance.

While I agree with some of what Serpent has said, I have to say, Master Lacey has brought up some interesting points:

1. He talked about the Chan Heung protrait not ever being seen until 100 years after his death...and the fantastic resemblance to the portrait of his son. And he said, "Past and present elders of the Hung Sing and Buck Sing branches have visited the Chan [family] schools in Hong Kong on many occasions during the 1950’s and 1960’s and they never once saw Chan Heung’s picture displayed in any of the Chan [family] schools..." a very interesting point. What is the explanation?

2. He also talked about the inconsistencies of history between Master Doc Fai Wong and Master Chen Yong Fa...and has challenged the sudden appearance of Ching Cho as being Choy Fook, after years of telling us westerners that Ching Cho never existed. What are we to make of this?

XJo, what is your take on these points, based on your research and experience?

Many thanks for your time,
123

Serpent

11-13-2002, 10:28 PM

While we’re on the subject of inconsistencies, what about this? These are direct quotes from www.buksing.com, from the hand of Master Vince Lacey, General Dave’s own twin brother. If Dave Lacey claims to speak for all Hung Sing and Buk Sing, how come his own brother says these things? (The bold lines are my own doing).

As for the existence of the Green Grass Monk (Ching Cho Wor Seung), whether you choose to believe it, it’s not important as long as it is agreed that Jeung Hung Sing founded the Hung Sing Kwoon branch; that’s all that matters here!
…..
As long as we believe and agree that Great Grandmaster Chan Heung is the Founder and Jeung Hung Sing (Jeung Yim) is the founder of the Hung Sing Kwoon (school) and Tarm Sarm (Tam Sam) is the founder of Buk Sing Kwoon, there is no need to fight among yourselves as to who has the real version of the History of Choy Lay Fut! We are all ONE family-Choy Lay Fut!
…..
I know Master Chan Yun Fa (from Sydney , Australia ) and he is the great, great, grandson of our founder, Chan Heung of Choy Lay Fut. He is in possession of the original documents, photos and manuscripts of Choy Lay Fut as passed down to him and his aunt, Chan Kit Fong, now residing in Arcadia , California . Therefore, in my opinion, they are the true inheritors and keepers of the Choy Lay Fut System as passed down by our Great Grandmaster Chan Heung to his son, Chan Koon Bark, grandson Chan Yiu Chi, great-grandson Chan Wah Hon and finally to his great, great grandson, Chan Yun Fa.

Now, whichever one is right or wrong (or perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle), how can we take any authority from Dave Lacey when he can’t even agree with his own twin? This is NOT an attack, but a genuine query.

Personally, I think the portrait thing is nonsense. They are not entirely similar anyway, and besides, a faked portrait is not really grounds to discount an entire history. Sure, it might cast some doubt if it is fake, but it’s certainly not something to hinge your entire counter-argument on.

Also, I don’t believe that Wong Doc Fai is an official spokesman for the Chan Family. Isn’t he more a Hung Sing man, trained by the same teacher as Frank McCarthy’s teacher? That would be the same Frank McCarthy that started all this hoohah some months ago. Just because Wong Doc Fai states a history that matches the Chan Family history, that doesn’t automatically make him Chan Family.

I’m really not qualified to state any of these things with any authority, but they are things that raise questions in my mind. Just some more food for thought. I’m NOT attacking anyone nor am I a recognised spokesperson for any branch of CLF. OK?

iron_silk

11-14-2002, 12:08 AM

Please keep focus.

There was an official thing going on between bean curd and jo.

Let any other inqueries start from another post.

Jo and Bean is having a hard enough time as it is.

extrajoseph

11-14-2002, 02:03 AM

Thank you for asking for my opinion. To answer your first question:

When we look at CLF history we need to look at Chinese history as well.

When the Communists defeated the KMT and founded New China in 1949, CLF students with wealth and connections to KMT have to flee China in a hurry. They don’t have time or space to pack a portrait of Chan Heung in their suitcase. They would be lucky if they have a shirt on their back!

To stop people from fleeing China, border control was very strict between Hong Kong and the Mainland during the early years. Then the Cultural Revolution came, all Kung Fu schools were shut down and no one dare to have anything to do with martial arts. This did not finish until the late 1960s.

In the early 1970s things began to open up, people were able to travel back to China to visit their relatives, it was then the students of Chan Yiu Chi who choose to teach Kung Fu for a living in Hong Kong were able to re-establish contact with their teacher's family in Guangzhou. That is why we don’t see any portrait of Chan Heung until the early 1970s.

To answer your second question, we have to look again at the political situation of the time.

Wong Doc-Fai studied with Woo Wan Chek who was a student of Chan Yiu Chi. Woo fled China when the Communists came and he did not have any contact with his teacher or his teacher’s family while in Hong Kong. His recollection of CLF history was a verbal one and he did not have the means to check the details with the people in China. Chan Kit Fong, Chan Yiu Chi’s daughter was the only descendant living in Hong Kong at the time. Being a daughter, she has only limited knowledge and there was no way she can communicate with her family in Guangzhou without risking her life as well.

Wong’s history was transmitted through Woo. Being a verbal one and not double checked with the family records, would show some minor inconsistence with Chen Yong Fa’s version. Chen Yong Fa did not leave China for Australia until 1984 or there about, so there was a gap of about 35 years before we can get a chance to to hear from Chan Heung's male descendant again when he began to teach CLF in Sydney.

Ching Cho being Choy Fook was known for a long time, but it did not become an issue until people like Sifu Dave Lacey began to try to use Ching Cho’s name to leap frog Jeurng Yim into the founder’s chair. Woo knew about it verbally from his teacher but he did not have any written evidence, Chen Yong Fa provided that on his website only recently.

Sifu Dave Lacey tried to use this sudden appearance of evidence as being fakes without bother to understand the historical background leading up to their appearance.

On the other hand, if Ching Cho did existed, even though he may be a revolutionary hiding from the government of the day, we should still have some footprints of his existence, like what was his real name, where did he came from, when was he born, how did he died, who were his teachers, how he got to Bak Pai Shan, what martial art he contributed to CLF, who were Jeurng Yim’s siheng-dai etc. According to the Ching Cho fans, Jeurng Yim studied with him for 8 years in the mountain, you would think Jeurng would have enough time to find out a little about his other teacher and passed it down.

I have yet to see a credible piece of evidence to suggest that he did exist and taught Jeurng Yim. When I was in Futshan last year, the historians were working on it. Using Sifu Dave Lacey’s yardstick for sudden appearance, we should not believe in anything that they may come up with in the future!

Instead of providing positive proofs, all Sifu Dave Lacey do was to attack anyone who do not agree with him and lumped them together as Chan Clan. From what we are talking about here, you can see Wong Doc Fai do not communicate with Chen Yong Fa and I do my research on my own, so there is no clandestine group conspiracy to defame the Hung Sing/ Buk Sing schools as suggested by Sifu Dave Lacey.

JosephX

bean curd

11-14-2002, 04:01 AM

joseph - well you are as predictable as always - you are a "snake with the fangs turned inward " - nothing more !! what a weak excuse for not to debate lol, if you forgot - debates are actually two opposing forces discussing an issue - it has nothing to do with me changing your opinion and you changing mine !! i honestly can't believe how weak you are - you where the one yelling and being so strong asking for it too happen and when i put the two questions up, all you have done is try and let the "camel find the well on it own "

so what do you do - YOU try and wiggle and squirm your way out of it by bring in a pathetic attack on the lacey brothers, if you want to know why they write the way they do, just go and see them, but make sure they know who you are, don't use your REAL name, make sure you tell them you are extra joseph, then i am sure they will tell you why they write the way they do - again so pathetic you really are hak sum. you try to make out they are inconsistant lol what can be said of the chan family history lol .

your writtings on ching cho and the tiger skin are so hilarious that i can not believe you actually think people are that dumb. you better go back and read your post you wrote months ago on what you said of ching cho - it will wake you up - if the story was known for as long as you say it was then why didn't you actually dispute the fact that ching cho was choy fook rather than be so against the very idea at the very start, even if you don't believe in it, the fact is you knew of it yet remained silent. the story on the tiger skin is just as funny, in chan village, lol, when did they move a chan assocation there ??? - never was one in kwantung or chan village and any of the surrounding villages, not canton, futshan anywhere - one big mistake on your part AGAIN !!!

to the elders - i read what you wrote and laughed so hard it is one of the best humour writtings you have done - you where not serious - right !!! the reason they don't need to see davids site is because they actually give him the information, if you read again my previous post, when you tell me who you are so i can organise for 5th generation to meet with you and david sifu does not need to be there you can see it all, i can assure you i am more than capable of organising, all i need is your information - what are you so afraid off, if you speak so much to elders and go to so many meetings then there is nothing to worry about - true !!

please remember extra - joe - seph, this is not personal just my observations - it is freezing in here, you sure we are in the kitchen !!!

bean curd

11-14-2002, 04:26 AM

joseph why wasn't the picture of chan heung seen even before 1949 in either HK or canton, chan village or anywhere in the " SEI UP" provinces ??

will you answer this question -

i can only wish :D

extrajoseph

11-14-2002, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by bean curd
joseph why wasn't the picture of chan heung seen even before 1949 in either HK or canton, chan village or anywhere in the " SEI UP" provinces ??
will you answer this question -
i can only wish :D

Hi bean curd,

Again we need to study our Chinese history to answer this one.

China before 1949 was also in a state of turmoil, there was WW II when we were invaded by the Japenese, before that was the civil wars and before that was the Opium war and invasion by the foreigners. China was poor and China was in a constant state of unrest.

Martial art was taught in makeshift places and often in the open and they have to move from places to places all the time. There were no nice big commercial places and stability to show off your history and lineage like we do today. Besides, there were no reproduction means like we have now, so a hand drawn picture was a very valuable piece of property not easily given out.

BTW, "Sei Yup" is not a province, it is a district. Have you been to China? If you haven't, then you should make an effort to, this part of the world is beautiful and full of CLF history. Every little town you go to there is a CLF group you can be intoduced into and make friends.

Until our next chat in the kitchen......

JosephX:D

extrajoseph

11-14-2002, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by bean curd
to the elders - i read what you wrote and laughed so hard it is one of the best humour writtings you have done - you where not serious - right !!! the reason they don't need to see davids site is because they actually give him the information,

Hi bean curd,

It is me again, I just couldn't let this one go by.

CLF like any other organisations and groups are full of politics and intriques. From what you said above, poor Dave Lacey has been used. Instead of them coming out in the open and say what they mean, they used him to create "a storm in a tea cup" if you know what I mean.

I know the Lacey brothers, they are great guys and full of passion and loyalty for what they do, but there are also nasty little elders in this world as well, sad to say.

JosephX;)

Serpent

11-14-2002, 03:49 PM

Bean curd, I think you're not even reading the poster's name properly. You seem to be accusing joseph of saying the things that I posted. And you expect us to take you seriously as scholarly and a reliable source of historical information?

Joseph is being clear and polite, citing historical and cultural reasoning behind his points as well as the results of his personal research. You're still being childish and offensive.

k-no

11-14-2002, 04:04 PM

And we're supposed to take Joseph seriously after HIS OWN misquotes and backpedalling when called on them? Put a sock in it, Serpent and let these two speak for themselves.

k

Serpent

11-14-2002, 04:37 PM

You should take your own advice, k-no. You're just Dave Lacey's lap dog anyway. He claims not to lower himself to actually post on these forums, yet you have to run anything you say by him first. That's just hypocrisy.

SETANSI

11-14-2002, 05:50 PM

JUST BACK FROM THE HUNG SING GLOBAL CHOI LAY FUT FRATERNITY MEET IN KL . THERE WERE OVER 1000 CLF PEOPLE FROM ASIA EUROPE AUSTRALIA AMERICA ...
AND I COULD NOT FIND ONE WHO DID NOT CREDIT CHUENG YIM (HUNG SING) AS THE FOUNDER OF CHOI LAY FUT. GUESS THE GENERAL IS NOT ALONE HUH?

SERPENT AND JO JO IF YOU SAID WHAT YOU HAVE IN HK YOU WOULD FIND A FEW BUK SING PEOPLE KNOCKING ON YOUR FRONT DOORS.

K-NO RELAX THEY ARE DIGGING THERE OWN HOLES. (NOT JUST THE ONES BETWEEN THERE LEGS)

SO HIDE BEHINDE YOUR COMPUTER MONITORS WHILE YOU STILL CAN. THE HATCHET MEN ARE SHARPENING THEIR HACHETS.

WE WILL FIND YOU , THE TRIADS ARE STRONG IN CANADA, AND THEY ARE GETTING CLOSE.

extrajoseph

11-14-2002, 06:19 PM

Don't exagerate, they say he is the founder of (Futsan) Hung Sing CLF not the entire CLF. After all it is a global (Futsan) Hung Sing CLF Meet. Read your Chinese press release and don't be poisoned by the misinformation! There is two Chinese characters with a subtle but inportant differences, one says Great Victory Hung Sing (for Futsan Hung Sing), and the other says Heroic Victory Hung Sing.

I am in Hong Kong at the moment and I just walked past a few Euros the other night in Temple Street wearing Bak Sing tee-shirts! Having been there once myself, I am not scared, come and get me if you can find me first.

JosephX:D

extrajoseph

11-14-2002, 06:22 PM

Now we are getting closer to the source of evil.

If Sifu Dave Lacey (a person known to wear his heart on his sleeve) has been feed these misleading information by one or two of his elders (no names please) then these elders are the ones responsible for the upheaval that is going on in the internet at the moment.

If these so called elders are righteous people, they could have raised these issues in the Chinese papers and in their association meetings. Instead they poisoned their students minds and set them loose to fight their own brothers and sisters in cyber space.

Shame on them!
:mad:

iron_silk

11-14-2002, 08:50 PM

People's belief does not make things true. No matter how many people believe so.

The truth is the truth...people don't make it true.

Fu-Pow

11-15-2002, 11:02 AM

People's belief does not make things true. No matter how many people believe so.

I wish that were "the truth", unfortunately history has taught us otherwise.

In a way you are correct that there is "a truth" (aka a reality) that will eventually find it's way out through the lies, misperceptions and ignorance.

Unfortunately, this can take a very long time depending on what the belief is and how many people believe it.

For example, the concept of "race" is ingrained into the human psyche. Despite the fact that it is pretty well established that race is largely a social construct this belief continues to exist and persist.

Or look at the arguments that continue to persist over "creationism" vs. evolution. Even though there is a huge body of scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines which points to evolution.

The bottom line is that people like Dave Lacey put the Hung Sing/Bak Sing side of CLF in a bad light. On his website he is critical, judgemental, reactionary, sarcastic, political, overly-proud, brags about his own exploits, etc, etc, etc. He might not think so but this turns people off from him and his school. So he has less students and less people who will believe his "version" of the history...true or not.

In the mean time the Chan Family people for the most part portray themselves as being open, organized, moral, "spiritual", they host seminars to China, they post video clips on their website, they emphasize tradition and respect. They never say anything bad about anyone on their website, etc, etc, etc. This attracts students so they will have more people to hear their version of the history....true or not.

If I was a potential new student and was looking for a kung fu school and knew nothing except what was on the websites, who would I choose?

This is largely an issue of how you present yourself and believe me it is just as important as your abiliity in attracting students.

So you guys can continue to argue and nit pick and Dave can continue to post nasty messages on his website and where does it get anyone? Nowhere. And what does it do for Choy Lay Fut? Nothing. In fact because you guys are posting on a public forum/internet it hurts us all because it drives people away from a very cool martial art.

Fu-Pow

11-15-2002, 11:38 AM

SO HIDE BEHINDE YOUR COMPUTER MONITORS WHILE YOU STILL CAN. THE HATCHET MEN ARE SHARPENING THEIR HACHETS.

I'm sending this post to the moderator and I'm going to attempt to have you banned from kung fu online. This kind of $hit has no place on this discussion forum.

extrajoseph

11-15-2002, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Fu-Pow

So you guys can continue to argue and nit pick and Dave can continue to post nasty messages on his website and where does it get anyone? Nowhere. And what does it do for Choy Lay Fut? Nothing. In fact because you guys are posting on a public forum/internet it hurts us all because it drives people away from a very cool martial art.

Well said, I for one will hold my tongue and I hope, serpent, k-no, setansi, bean-curd, iron-silk, 123 and others will do the same.

Fu-Pow is right, CLF is too cool a martial art to be destroyed by hot heads.

JosephX

SETANSI

11-15-2002, 02:01 PM

JO X
I've just been informed that you were in KL at the budist temple, and saw sifu Lacey there. Given that you had the chance to debate the history with him face to face as he requested , I can't help but wonder why you did not aproach him then. But instead you chose to comment about his demo from behind your computer monitor. Your actions speak louder than your words. You say the posts on these forums don't scare you but it seems Sifu Lacey does :D

SETANSI

11-15-2002, 02:11 PM

Have me banned put me on your ignore list realy it makes no diffrence to me I find this forum tiresome. Where you with your sifu in Malysia ? We didn' expect jo jo to be there but we were looking for you. would'nt be supprised if you were the one who denied being fu pow when asked directly by the General himself.

jox if your my brother then we must be Cain and Able

yik-wah-tik

11-15-2002, 04:28 PM

i can't help but sit back and laugh at most of you here on this line....(fu-pow,joseph,slurpent) and you guys just argue this bs over and over only here on the forum. what are you guys doing to set the story straight. all your *****in' and complaining is getting you nowhere.

see, people like myself and sifu d.lacey are doing what we can to let the world know about the hung sing legacy. people like joseph and slurpent hate to see the hung sing people gain recognition because it takes away from theres. but what you fail to realize that the hung sing name is far stronger than chan heungs name. when choy lee fut is ever mentioned, fut san and hung sing are always brought up.

as i have said before "even the wing chun school mentions jeong hung sing as one of southern chinas greatest fighters........in a book called "yuen kay say wing chun" and they are supposed to be our enemies!!!!!!! but chan heungs name is never mentioned. hmm, i wonder why?

and i read somewhere joseph saying there is some confusion between our hung sing and chan koon paks hung sing. can you tell me why did the son of chan heung call his school a name similar to that of his fathers student jeong yim. what did he not call his school chan kwoon?

i laugh at you internet ninjas who continue to attack.......whoa, wait a second didn't just read joseph claiming that the lacey brothers are good guys? didn't joseph call d lacey a *****? why is jo backpeddling?

see, even fu-pow who put me on some inmature "i'm not your friend anymore" type of ****, man, you really need to pick a family dude! because if your martial arts career grows, you will be viewed as a doc fai wong....who is not a "hung sing" man but was a student at the hung sing kwoon under professor lau bun for only a very short time. if anyone here knew how lau bun taught back then, then you know what i am talking about. enough said.

see, i can respect people like dave lacey, k-no, setansi, and of course myself and a few others here who have revealed themselves because we can trace them back to their sifu's. if any of us make some serious mistakes out here we always represent our sifu's so we have to watch what we say. you internet ninjas who hide are just a bunch of punks!

if you are going to disrespect someone be prepared to back your **** up. joseph....." if you can catch me" man, big brother jo......you sound like a little runt of a ***** who has never experienced what it is like to have your life on the line. so thats why you fight with words because your clf is no **** good. and oh that comes from me, frankie, your friendly neighborhood "fat hung sing thug" gung fu man!!!!!!!!

peace out BIATCH!!!!

illusionfist

11-15-2002, 10:46 PM

So which side are you on JoX? Now you are portraying yourself as somebody who is fighting for the good of CLF. Pick a side dude and dont play the other board members like idiots. You were not too long ago bashing the Hung Sing and cracking jokes at members who mentioned Ching Cho. It is clear that you are trying to gain favor by acting like you are doing this for the good of CLF. When you can't back up your stories with evidence AS SUPPORTED FROM THE SIDE YOU SUPPOSEDLY DEFEND, you suddenly transform yourself into some sort of crusader to unite the family when in fact you were the one who stirred ****e up in the first place.

How many more times are you gonna post the same circular ****e in a different way? You attack BC's method of asking a question, yet you understand the question. So why dont you just answer it? I guess that would be too easy

If you really want to unite the family as you claim now, you should go and face the elders of the Hung Sing and Buk Sing with your clan's/gwoon elders. This should be easy since you are in HK. Then again you had that chance and you didn't take advantage. Why is that?

Thats on a family/lineage level. For this internet discussion, i think your responsibility is more along the lines of proving or at least coming forth with the historical evidence that you defend as being irrefutable. No more "face" games and circular arguing, just get on with it. This is what you wanted and now that you have it you are fumbling with the ball. Not coming forth with anything is just irresponsible and there are those that are reading this thread that honestly want to compare notes so that they can make an HONEST and EDUCATED decision.

***To the other CLF venerables***

I'm sorry to keep posting like this, but I get tired when there are these kinds of threads on the forum that take up massive amounts of posts and all it is is just petty political squabbling and no substance. I know the simple answer would be, "hey man, just dont read them...", but that defeats the purpose when there are people that disseminate info yet they have agendas. I'm an outsider to this whole thing and even I can see through JoX's political meandering and evasive comments that are meant to incite rather than educate. I just hope those of you in the CLF community can see it as well.

11-15-2002, 11:11 PM

WEll said Illusionfist, it is sad for me to see the CLF family fighting in an internet forum. What ever happened to the face to face way to resolve issues. The Buk sing and Hung Sing groups from what I read are willing, why the Chan group not willing to meet them ?

I know this is none of our business but I really hate to see this carry on. CLF is known as a great fighting style, I have many friends that are CLF practioners, it is sad for me to see this happening here.

peace

DF

bean curd

11-16-2002, 04:00 AM

serpent says

" If they don't read English then he has pretty much free licence to write what he likes, telling them anything. That's assuming they have any idea at all. "

joseph says

"The elders I talked to don't even know what Sifu Dave Lacey has written because, as you said it yourself, they can not read English and has little access to the internet. "

and another -

" I go to these meetings and I know what goes on. I can assure you he has no authority to speak on behalf of any Hung Sing or Buk Sing Associations or CLF Union. "

serpent read your own stuff and others first, enough from you, you say the same as joe seph word for word, format to format, so there is no need to answer to both, one will suffice

the next major clf question is " HAVE WE SEEN JOE SEPH AND SERPENT IN THE SAME ROOM TOGETHER ?? "

:D

bean curd

11-16-2002, 04:38 AM

joe seph says = " I just couldn't let this one go by" , of coarse you can't anything that is abstract you will answer too, anything of substance you quickly turn and run away, for someone who wanted to debate you quickly turned and ran like an old women, this shows you have no substance. you have too tell me what books and magazines you got your information from i am so curious.

joe seph says = " I know the Lacey brothers, they are great guys and full of passion and loyalty for what they do,"

now joe seph how many times are you going to change, you have no idea what you are talking about, when i first came on this forum and we talked i thought "here is a person who knows his stuff" , now after all this i know realise you don't and only parrot what you have read, the mistakes you have posted is so clear and obvious, i cannot believe anyone finds your words note worthy, you have not brought any findings out, other than words, which shows no foundation, you clearly do not understand chinese idicate nor faliel piety or ways of family as your answers too me missed the most critical points and you then floundered on the obvious, and someone here is trying to make out you have been upfront lol what a laugh.

i first thought this when we spoke of the gau dai pa,and you spoke of the weapon and gave out incorrect info, but i let it go because i actually thought you knew what you where talking about and maybe you made a mistake but then when i pushed the discussion you suddenly said you had to go to " china " how appropriate !!!

you talk about respect yet what you have written on the elders is so disgusting i am saddened by how you have made others listen to your words, you are a con, nothing more , i can only hope others see this for what you are - how shamefull !!!

on your history this is so mediocre that it is not even worth the time you wrote on it, maybe you could explain to me how the canton and HK councils relaited to each other in not only morale but with financial dual support, for that matter tell me also why in the early 1900's futshan was famous for its production of a great textile and i don't mean china ware that is way too obvoius lol. lets look at also the great martial tournements that where prevelaint in these times from 1890's to 1940's. how the philanthropists of the four province assisted each other in there manifacture of materials etc.

also what has commercial have to do with anything, if you know your history you would know the training was held for other reasons, your thoughts are too modern in their thinking - missed again eh.