Sirus
10-21-2005, 11:11 AM
#1 05-28-2003, 04:00 PM
Sandman2[Wing Chun]
Moderator Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
Posts: 156
Can we have a mature discussion about History/Lineage?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All,
The number one generator of angry, offensive posts on here is the discussion of lineage/history. Can we, as an online community, have a mature discussion of the lineage and history of WCK? And what exactly would that be anyway? What would be the criteria, what would be unacceptable? How much would you be willing to listen to someone tell you that your version of the WCK history is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that as long as people are convinced that they are in possession of THE TRUTH(c) that whatever they say should just be accepted by the community as a whole, and if someone were to disagree they would be a fool at the very least. For example, UltimateWingChun has recently included a section in one of his postings that I've deleted that he maintains is critically important for understanding the art of TWC. He also maintains that this is THE TRUTH(c), and there's no reason that anyone should doubt this or remove this section from his posting. I'm going to repost just that section here for readers to consider. Since it only applies to one particular group in the WC world, I'm going to change the names, and only the names, then post it a few times so you can scroll down and find the version that would apply to you:
"Of course some, like Wong Sheung Leung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE WONG SHEUNG LEUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YIP MAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Wong Sheung Leung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Wong Sheung Leung did, said, or thought (in those days it was Wong Sheung Leung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like William Cheung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE WILLIAM CHEUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YIP MAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as William Cheung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what William Cheung did, said, or thought (in those days it was William Cheung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like Garrett Gee, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE GARRETT GEE NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM WONG MING, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Garrett Gee falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Garrett Gee did, said, or thought (in those days it was Garrett Gee who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like Sum Nung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE SUM NUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YUEN KAY SHAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Sum Nung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Sum Nung did, said, or thought (in those days it was Sum Nung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like Leung Ting, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE LEUNG TING NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YIP MAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Leung Ting falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Leung Ting did, said, or thought (in those days it was Leung Ting who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like Kenneth Cheung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE KENNETH CHEUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM LEUNG SHEUNG, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Kenneth Cheung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Kenneth Cheung did, said, or thought (in those days it was Kenneth Cheung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like Chan Wah Shan, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE CHAN WAH SHAN NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM LEUNG JAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Chan Wah Shan falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Chan Wah Shan did, said, or thought (in those days it was Chan Wah Shan who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
Are we all really ok with this sort of thing? And what if it does upset you? For any discussion to take place, it seems to me that one would have to be at least somewhat more diplomatic about their opinions. No one has to change their opinion, but is there really any reason so be obnoxious about it? I’m more than willing to allow lineage and history discussions, as I feel we are capable of having them in a mature fashion. Would anyone like to put for their own set of criteria that they would use to make such a determination, as to what is or isn’t a valid discussion of lineage/history?
I'm suspending the "sudden death" warnings/bans for this thread, and this thread alone(no posting bits from here on other threads!), as I would like for people to please include examples of what they consider to be appropriate and inappropriate. But just examples, let's not turn this thread into a lineage argument in and of itself....
__________________
Thanks!
Sandman[Wing Chun]
"Learning is not compulsory ... neither is survival."
-W. Edwards Derning
A thought on Civil Discourse:
“Democracy is a means of living together despite our differences. Democratic deliberation is an alternative to physical violence. It is predicated on the assumption that it’s possible to disagree agreeably, that it’s better to laugh than cry, that one can vigorously contest the positions of one’s adversary without questioning his or her personal integrity or motivation, and that parties to a debate are entitled to the presumption that their views are legitimate if not correct.” -Thomas Mann
Sandman2[Wing Chun]
Moderator Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
Posts: 156
Can we have a mature discussion about History/Lineage?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All,
The number one generator of angry, offensive posts on here is the discussion of lineage/history. Can we, as an online community, have a mature discussion of the lineage and history of WCK? And what exactly would that be anyway? What would be the criteria, what would be unacceptable? How much would you be willing to listen to someone tell you that your version of the WCK history is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that as long as people are convinced that they are in possession of THE TRUTH(c) that whatever they say should just be accepted by the community as a whole, and if someone were to disagree they would be a fool at the very least. For example, UltimateWingChun has recently included a section in one of his postings that I've deleted that he maintains is critically important for understanding the art of TWC. He also maintains that this is THE TRUTH(c), and there's no reason that anyone should doubt this or remove this section from his posting. I'm going to repost just that section here for readers to consider. Since it only applies to one particular group in the WC world, I'm going to change the names, and only the names, then post it a few times so you can scroll down and find the version that would apply to you:
"Of course some, like Wong Sheung Leung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE WONG SHEUNG LEUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YIP MAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Wong Sheung Leung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Wong Sheung Leung did, said, or thought (in those days it was Wong Sheung Leung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like William Cheung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE WILLIAM CHEUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YIP MAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as William Cheung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what William Cheung did, said, or thought (in those days it was William Cheung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like Garrett Gee, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE GARRETT GEE NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM WONG MING, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Garrett Gee falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Garrett Gee did, said, or thought (in those days it was Garrett Gee who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like Sum Nung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE SUM NUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YUEN KAY SHAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Sum Nung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Sum Nung did, said, or thought (in those days it was Sum Nung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like Leung Ting, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE LEUNG TING NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YIP MAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Leung Ting falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Leung Ting did, said, or thought (in those days it was Leung Ting who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like Kenneth Cheung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE KENNETH CHEUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM LEUNG SHEUNG, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Kenneth Cheung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Kenneth Cheung did, said, or thought (in those days it was Kenneth Cheung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
"Of course some, like Chan Wah Shan, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE CHAN WAH SHAN NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM LEUNG JAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Chan Wah Shan falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Chan Wah Shan did, said, or thought (in those days it was Chan Wah Shan who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."
Are we all really ok with this sort of thing? And what if it does upset you? For any discussion to take place, it seems to me that one would have to be at least somewhat more diplomatic about their opinions. No one has to change their opinion, but is there really any reason so be obnoxious about it? I’m more than willing to allow lineage and history discussions, as I feel we are capable of having them in a mature fashion. Would anyone like to put for their own set of criteria that they would use to make such a determination, as to what is or isn’t a valid discussion of lineage/history?
I'm suspending the "sudden death" warnings/bans for this thread, and this thread alone(no posting bits from here on other threads!), as I would like for people to please include examples of what they consider to be appropriate and inappropriate. But just examples, let's not turn this thread into a lineage argument in and of itself....
__________________
Thanks!
Sandman[Wing Chun]
"Learning is not compulsory ... neither is survival."
-W. Edwards Derning
A thought on Civil Discourse:
“Democracy is a means of living together despite our differences. Democratic deliberation is an alternative to physical violence. It is predicated on the assumption that it’s possible to disagree agreeably, that it’s better to laugh than cry, that one can vigorously contest the positions of one’s adversary without questioning his or her personal integrity or motivation, and that parties to a debate are entitled to the presumption that their views are legitimate if not correct.” -Thomas Mann