how about this for a quote

[lkfmdc]

do people really not get the fact that if you "make up" a system, attributing it to some hoary mystical entity gives it instant caché, where as attributing it to yourself is horribly uncouth and jejune...



this came up RE the mythical origins of Taiji at Wudang under Zhang San Feng

you can probably figure out which former poster originated this fine quote, but even if you can't we can discuss it

[Shǎguā]

http://slowpokecomics.com/strips/weirdtrick.png

[David Jamieson]

You ever comment on something that you are well studied in only to have some jerk tell you "who do you think you are? You're just some random internet fool, I want to see a certified paper from a doctor on the subject!!!"

However, if you make a comment, attribute it to an authority or a perceived authority on the matter at hand and no one says anything.

I think it's a human trait to contest what is in front of you and accept something you cannot contest immediately through a person.

This probably explains the tenacity of organized religions for one thing. It also explains a lot of the chest thumping and sh1t talk as we see so often in this particular genre of communications that is the typical martial arts forum. :D

Bodhidharma? Jesus? Zoroaster? Socrates? Moses? Did these people really and truly exist? Don't answer that anyone, because trust me, you don't know despite what you or I might believe.

Frustrating eh?

[lkfmdc]

Bodhidharma? Jesus? Zoroaster? Socrates? Moses?



of that list, two DEFINTELY 110% were real people, two almost certainly were people and one probably wasn't .....

[David Jamieson]

of that list, two DEFINTELY 110% were real people, two almost certainly were people and one probably wasn't .....

Yes, but which ones? lol

110%... :p

[lkfmdc]

Yes, but which ones? lol



you figure it out

[bawang]

this came up RE the mythical origins of Taiji at Wudang under Zhang San Feng

you can probably figure out which former poster originated this fine quote, but even if you can't we can discuss it

six harmony spear traces back to a robber

praying mantis back to "wang guy"

chen taiji back to their patriarch who failed military exam and ran home

these were normal people

[RisingCrane]

http://truwazama.weebly.com/soke-bob-yoder.html

:eek:

[Pete]

woah that guy is a pro :p 30 dan belts :rolleyes:

[Miqi]

Does it really even matter?

[Scott R. Brown]

woah that guy is a pro :p 30 dan belts :rolleyes:

Shoot, I've got 30 fan belts!!!:cool:

[David Jamieson]

Shoot, I've got 30 fan belts!!!:cool:

I've got more than 30 ban belts. :p

[lkfmdc]

I have a Tan belt....

[Scott R. Brown]

I have a Tan belt....

A few more years and you'll need a bran belt!:eek:

[Hebrew Hammer]

of that list, two DEFINTELY 110% were real people, two almost certainly were people and one probably wasn't .....

This you know because??? Always interesting when people have conclusions based on heresay about people that may or may not have existed thousands of years ago.
You are entitled to your opinion of course...certainly not based on anything factual.

[lkfmdc]

This you know because??? Always interesting when people have conclusions based on heresay about people that may or may not have existed thousands of years ago.
You are entitled to your opinion of course...certainly not based on anything factual.

Here's an idea, READ A BOOK... maybe learn how history works, you know things like DOCUMENTS and RECORDS... then you wouldn't sound so ignorant

[Hebrew Hammer]

Interesting quote coming from you, I'd like to see a detailed reading list from you. History books are full of distorted and inaccurate or debatable information, based on the human element of the victor, cultural perspective, and politics. It's neither here nor there...I allowed myself to buy into your trolling...my apologies.

Note to self, more coffee.

[lkfmdc]

History books are full of distorted and inaccurate or debatable information,



classic anti-intellectualism :rolleyes:
lord forbid you read a book




I allowed myself to buy into your trolling...



you threw a temper tantrum, presumably because you don't understand who in that list is a verifiable person, who is not....

[Hebrew Hammer]

classic anti-intellectualism :rolleyes:


Quite the contrary...I'll explain it to you when you get older.


you threw a temper tantrum, presumably because you don't understand who in that list is a verifiable person, who is not....

Coming from a man who's reading list includes Mad Magazine.

Troll on Sweetcheeks.

[lkfmdc]

Is that all you have? What's funny is you don't even realize that you are demonstrating my point for me.....

I suppose we should blame the school system, that's why he can't read and comprehend :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

Hey boss, da topic, da topic!!!!

Nice Tatu, good idea, lets stay on topic.

:p

[GeneChing]

FLAN BELT

oh yeah, i totally went there.

cuz i'm og forum that way.

:cool:

[lkfmdc]

oh yeah, i totally went there.



stay out of my thread, it's nacho business ;)

[Syn7]

Intelligence is more apparent in the questions one asks rather than the answers one gives. Refer to sig. In the world of engineering, we have a group we refer to as knowledgeable idiots.

[bawang]

Is that all you have? What's funny is you don't even realize that you are demonstrating my point for me.....

I suppose we should blame the school system, that's why he can't read and comprehend :rolleyes:

1.facts get in the way of feeling good.

2. it is humiliating for a white to bow down and scrape to a non white, and endure ritual humiliation and pain. even more so when they realize its for nothing. accepting truth would lead to mental breakdown.

[Miqi]

classic anti-intellectualism :rolleyes:
lord forbid you read a book



you threw a temper tantrum, presumably because you don't understand who in that list is a verifiable person, who is not....

That wasn't anti-intellectualism - if anything, it was a fairly robust statement of the broad academic position on interpreting historical documents. I don't know where you got this from, but I assure you, academics don't just take ancient - or even modern - works as 'evidence' for what is written inside of them. That would be a logical fallacy, and a grave error.

[rett]

That wasn't anti-intellectualism - if anything, it was a fairly robust statement of the broad academic position on interpreting historical documents. I don't know where you got this from, but I assure you, academics don't just take ancient - or even modern - works as 'evidence' for what is written inside of them. That would be a logical fallacy, and a grave error.


A logical fallacy you say?

Which logical fallacy is that. State it by name.

[lkfmdc]

保甲

know what that is?

if you don't, chances are you can't have an intelligent conversation on ancient China

[Miqi]

A logical fallacy you say?

Which logical fallacy is that. State it by name.

Dear Rett,
I'm afraid that I'm not sure of the formal name for the logical fallacy of arguing that just because something is published in a book that it is therefore necessarily true. I rather think my point safe, however.