Page 20 of 25 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 286 to 300 of 374

Thread: Training

  1. #286
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    Sure looks like a Tan Da! But since you've said you guys don't do Tan Da, or applications, I guess it can't be a Tan Da!
    Finally. It's only taken about 2 years for you to register this info. Well done!

  2. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by dlcox View Post
    Your views on VT are your opinion, not shared by all in VT community
    Consistency and system coherence are not a matter of opinion. Any time we have had a technical discussion of the system, you don't have a clue how it it works, and resort to silly generalities or downright contradictions. If you had a coherent understanding that was different then you would not do this.

    It is clearly a specialization in my opinion
    Why is it "clearly a specialism"?

    No evidence on your part presented to examine
    The evidence is there to see if you want to see it. I can't force you to go and experience it if you really don't want to, and I guess you really don't want to.

  3. #288
    Quote Originally Posted by guy b. View Post
    He pretended to be an outraged bystander who hadn't posted in years, moved to post by the terrible things being said on the forum. None of this was true.
    Didn't pretend, simply posted. Had the dlcox sign in on MT also until Hendrick got me banned. Even let people know who I was when I signed up as NI. Cant help it you're slow on the uptake.

  4. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by guy b. View Post
    The way I found out that NI and dlcox are the same person is the same way I found out that NI and SG are the same person. I didn't know of the NI and dlcox connection until you posted here, and you certainly didn't volunteer the information.
    Wow, keep repeating your conspiracy theory, maybe you'll convince yourself it's true. Two accounts is all buddy, one here, one there. How many do you have? 5 or 6 we know of.

  5. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by guy b. View Post
    This only contains meaningless generalities. You would need to be specific for it to be believable. For example in what way was the theoretical makeup of WSL VT inconsistent with your beliefs, what did you see technically that failed to impress, and why, etc
    I really don't give a sh!t if you believe me or not. Why can't you accept that VT didn't impress me? Have I somehow shook your faith? If not, then don't worry about. Keep on keeping on.

  6. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by guy b. View Post
    Consistency and system coherence are not a matter of opinion. Any time we have had a technical discussion of the system, you don't have a clue how it it works, and resort to silly generalities or downright contradictions. If you had a coherent understanding that was different then you would not do this.



    Why is it "clearly a specialism"?



    The evidence is there to see if you want to see it. I can't force you to go and experience it if you really don't want to, and I guess you really don't want to.
    Logical consistency is a big thing in philosophy, unfortunately for it to be so morality is often compromised. It wasn't logically consistent with MY beliefs, accept it.

    Technical discussions on "What if" scenarios isn't proof of anything. It's a hypothetical, unproven and not scientifically tested. It's basically just opinion on personal preference and belief. That may be good enough for you, but it isn't for me.

  7. #292
    Quote Originally Posted by dlcox View Post
    Why can't you accept that VT didn't impress me?
    Because your rant earlier showed you don't have any information about the system. If you had gone and tried it, then you would have such information. Simple

  8. #293
    Quote Originally Posted by dlcox View Post
    Logical consistency is a big thing in philosophy, unfortunately for it to be so morality is often compromised. It wasn't logically consistent with MY beliefs, accept it.
    Logical consistency? What are you talking about

    Technical discussions on "What if" scenarios isn't proof of anything. It's a hypothetical, unproven and not scientifically tested. It's basically just opinion on personal preference and belief
    Not sure what you think technical discussions regarding "what if" scenarios have to do with system coherence and consistency?

  9. #294
    Quote Originally Posted by dlcox View Post
    maybe you'll convince yourself it's true
    Convince myself? Why would I need to do that?

  10. #295
    Quote Originally Posted by guy b. View Post
    Because your rant earlier showed you don't have any information about the system. If you had gone and tried it, then you would have such information. Simple
    So basically what you're saying is that because I didn't come to the same conclusion as you when exposed to VT, that I'm a liar. More likely you were practicing some sh!te version of Wing Chun & when exposed to something half decent thought you had found the holy grail. That wasn't my experience. I'm not drinking the kool aid brother, stomp your feet, throw a tantrum, hold your breath, whatever it takes to vent your frustration at the fact I didn't find VT to be anything mind blowing or special. I never said it was a bad art, just not one for me.
    Last edited by dlcox; 04-20-2017 at 04:30 PM.

  11. #296
    Quote Originally Posted by guy b. View Post
    Logical consistency? What are you talking about



    Not sure what you think technical discussions regarding "what if" scenarios have to do with system coherence and consistency?
    The fact you can't make the connection speaks volumes.

    Because you use them as validation and proof of consistency. "What ifs" aren't a litmus of validity.

  12. #297
    Quote Originally Posted by guy b. View Post
    Convince myself? Why would I need to do that?
    Fine you're convinced, wrong, but convinced.

    You done trolling and phishing now?

  13. #298
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by guy b. View Post
    He pretended to be an outraged bystander who hadn't posted in years, moved to post by the terrible things being said on the forum. None of this was true.
    Uh, he hadn't post here since 2015. That's 2 years.....plural.....years. He was ****ed off by your typical BS. So what about that isn't true???

  14. #299
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    Uh, he hadn't post here since 2015. That's 2 years.....plural.....years. He was ****ed off by your typical BS. So what about that isn't true???
    He was pretending to be an unbiased bystander moved to post, when actually he's the same troll that just talked to us a couple months ago on the other forum.

  15. #300
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by dlcox View Post
    Technical discussions on "What if" scenarios isn't proof of anything. It's a hypothetical, unproven and not scientifically tested. It's basically just opinion on personal preference and belief.
    "What if" scenarios are not part of VT, anyway. So, this comment is irrelevant to the topic.

    To get technical on some more technical aspects of the system you claim to have experienced then;

    Surely you at least briefly went over the forms, chi-sau, some basic parts of the training system?

    So, what information is being conveyed to the practitioner by the very first opening movements of SNT? Why cross arms? Why low, high?

    What are the details on the hows and whys of dan-chi-sau?

    Did you even figure out how VT punches are done in any detail?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •