Originally Posted by
Lorenzo Valla
Thanks for your comments. While the certificate is the most obvious piece of evidence, I think I brought up several other items that weren't hearsay. Below are some of the things that caused me to reach my conclusion. Some are small items, some not.
As I haven't read the certificate or had it translated (by a professional service or the nice lady at the buffett) what you say the translation actually says is hearsay without the supporting information. If you want to argue that your version is true (it may be; I don't know) then don't take umbridge with those that would like to see the best evidence of your averments.
The name of the school and system Sin studied under was the Chung Yen Shaolin Martial Arts School.
Again, says who? You? Hiang? It may very well be, but, assuming for the sake of argument that this is correct, the fact that Hiang The now uses that name when Sin The doesn't legitmize your account any more than using "Do" instead of "tao" makes SD Japanese. You can call a mule a racehorse, but he still won't win the Derby.
-- He has never called his school this name.
Ok. Your point?
-- The certificates issued to his students through most of the 1980s (unsure of exact date) do not contain the characters "Shaolin", "Chung Yen" or "Hiang Kwang The"
See above.
To date there has been no certificate produced naming him the Grandmaster.
I've heard so much about this letter out there.... can you confirm or deny that you guys have this letter and will not return it? If so, that sounds a bit fishy to me...
His published training dates do not correspond with his certificate.
The material on the certificate doesn't correspond with the published info.
Taking your word for that
His legal effort in the early 1990s to copyright the system as the Grandmaster was dismissed.
Cases can be dimissed for numerous reasons. The Court no longer has the paperwork but the log bookes indicate that an Order of Compromise and Dismissal was entered. I know a bit about this. This means the case was settled out of court for whatever reason. Cases are "dismissed" all the time for reasons that don't go to the merits of the case.
Master Hiang kept a separate school for most of the time he has been in the U.S.
-- Neither one ever taught the other's class.
-- He was promoted in 1978 by one of his and Sin's still living former teachers.
-- He publicly refused Sin's promotion in 1983.
Again, I'll have to rely upon hearsay on that. I've always heard that they did teach under the same school.
I think these items are fairly established and I've kept them to simple statements. No one item is proof positive, but together they indicate a troubling pattern arguing against the current claims.
Arguments will always be here. With no proof positive, we can argue all day and not get anywhere.
Rather than replying point by point to the above, could you offer your evidence arguing for Sin's claim? Not a challenge.....just a request so we can move the dialogue further along.