| Author |
Message |
|
Christopher Lee
Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 160
|
 Posted: Mon 19 Oct, 2009 2:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| R Smith wrote: |  This is sadly how all these "discussions" go whenever ARMA is involved. This may as well have been a discussion about religon or politics for all the minds that have been changed. Minds are unchanged but hearts have been hardened and the rift between ARMA and the rest of the WMA community has widened.
I can not imagine that any other outcome was expected by the original poster because this is the way it always goes. So mission accomplished. Bravo! |
Can i ask a serious question to the general readership?
Just what is the "problem/issue" about ARMA? This thread got fair up my nose and seemingly up other people's noses, but why?
What is it about ARMA that seemingly raises the blood pressure of other, non-ARMA, WMA practitioners?
I don't think that there is a ARMA presence in Australia (if there is, i've never heard of it), so i've had nil contact with the group. But after having viewed the discussions in here over the years there is a recurring theme of some sort of "problem" with ARMA.
Now, to be fair, i don't know if ARMA has a problem with any one else, they might be perfectly happy doing their thing.
As mentioned above, "the rift has widened"; but i'm curious to know what was the cause of the rift in the first place, how did the rift arise; how long ago did the rift begin?
It seems that many people know what underlays the whole background to this, but i'm afraid that the late comers (like me) don't have the context. So either things can be discussed in a free and frank manner or they can't be; should we shy away from difficult stuff because it might put a nose out of joint, when seemingly many noses are already well and truly broken? I don't expect anything to change because attitudes are well and truly entrenched, perhaps just information. But i wonder if this topic can be tackled without it degenerating into the mother of all pit bull fights?
Christopher
"If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating
coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also,
look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating
coxcomb?"
|
|
  |
 |
Andrew Maxwell
Location: New Zealand Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Oct, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Christopher,
Well, I can't pretend to know everything that has gone on, but there have been a few things I've seen. For one thing, if you are unfortunate enough to read Medieval Swordsmanship by John Clements, you'll notice that the author peppers the book with a series of vitriolic rants against virtually everyone in the world. He reserves a particular brand of venom for sport fencers, re-enactors and members of the SCA. This theme is repeated throughout his literature, from what I've seen.
Also, having spoken with a number of former members of the group, the prevailing opinion within ARMA is that no-one outside the group has any good ideas, and that most members see the rest of the WMA community as the enemy. My personal experience has been that lower-ranked members of the group tend to be agreeable enough, but that the group hierarchy tend to be rude and difficult to talk to, and downright abusive if disagreed with.
Now of course that's largely my opinion, I may have simply been unfortunate and caught them at a bad time, whatever. You may find you have entirely different experiences with them, I don't know.
It is also worth noting that ARMA members seldom attend other groups' events, so most contact with them tends to be via the internet; disagreements do tend to get amplified in this medium and it may be that a lot of issues would be resolved if people had more face-to-face time with members of the group.
@ Mods, I'm not sure if you will deem this post ok or not. Please let me know if this post is deemed too inflammatory; I'm not trying to stir up trouble, just answer a question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Oct, 2009 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew
Overall you post is very one sided. I will try to present another side so as to add balance without adding fuel to any flames. It's just the other side of the coin.
| Quote: | | Well, I can't pretend to know everything that has gone on, but there have been a few things I've seen. For one thing, if you are unfortunate enough to read Medieval Swordsmanship by John Clements, you'll notice that the author peppers the book with a series of vitriolic rants against virtually everyone in the world. He reserves a particular brand of venom for sport fencers, re-enactors and members of the SCA. This theme is repeated throughout his literature, from what I've seen. |
You have to keep in mind the time frame in which John Clements' book was written. In 1995 and 1996 when the book was actually being written those problems were major problems. And some have yet to go away. One only has to look at one of the current threads on this forum to see people still trying to say that SCA fighting is a martial art.
| Quote: | Also, having spoken with a number of former members of the group, the prevailing opinion within ARMA is that no-one outside the group has any good ideas, and that most members see the rest of the WMA community as the enemy. My personal experience has been that lower-ranked members of the group tend to be agreeable enough, but that the group hierarchy tend to be rude and difficult to talk to, and downright abusive if disagreed with.
Now of course that's largely my opinion, I may have simply been unfortunate and caught them at a bad time, whatever. You may find you have entirely different experiences with them, I don't know.
It is also worth noting that ARMA members seldom attend other groups' events, so most contact with them tends to be via the internet; disagreements do tend to get amplified in this medium and it may be that a lot of issues would be resolved if people had more face-to-face time with members of the group. |
ARMA members are rude? ARMA members never make the type of public Ad Hominem attacks that are so often made against John Clements. Yet, even in this very thread I was referred to as Ran Unpleasant. Oh it gets passed off as just joking but it is clearly Ad Hominem. Like so many others you didn't just say that you disagree with John Clements, instead you referred to his writings are a "rant"? ARMA members often disagree with people on forums but we don't refer to what they say as a "rant". And when someone wrote in this thread that, "This thread has become much more offensive than anything the author of the article might have written" he was not referring to statements by ARMA members. In light of this I don't view ourselves are rude.
We also don't view people outside of ARMA as enemies, but we are often treated that way by people. Case in point, look at the reactions from people anytime new material is put out by ARMA. ARMA members don't react that way when we see new materials from other peope. And we surely don't try to refute marterials that we have not even seen! Rather we analysis and tested new marterials in hard sparring, if it works we use it, if not then we drop it and move on.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Tue 20 Oct, 2009 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | ...
ARMA members are rude? ARMA members never make the type of public Ad Hominem attacks that are so often made against John Clements. Yet, even in this very thread I was referred to as Ran Unpleasant. Oh it gets passed off as just joking but it is clearly Ad Hominem. |
Errr, before you get too comfortable in the saddle of that high-horse, can I please put this quote, from you, from higher up on this page/
"...I thank you for this great enlightenment. I will share it the rest of ARMA. I'm sure when John Clements receives this enlightening news he will totally drop all of the recent advancements he has made. .."
You don't seem to be "passing it of as a joke" but there is a very obvious sacastic tone here, which makes it perfectly clear you are being dismissive of the person who you were responding to. Snide and sarcastic are not any less rude than out in the open (not particularly funny) puns about one's name. Harder to pin someone down on, for sure (it will be interesting to see if you claim this has been taken out of context, as this will sorta prove my point)
And you really can't complain that people are criticising "materials they haven't even seen" since this IS their criticism, that the much vaunted, epoch making information being touted has yet to be presented so that people can actually look at it , rather than just being told that it is so awsome that it invalidates everything they have been doing for years
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Lee
Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 160
|
| Posted: Tue 20 Oct, 2009 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
ARMA members are rude? ARMA members never make the type of public Ad Hominem attacks that are so often made against John Clements. Yet, even in this very thread I was referred to as Ran Unpleasant. Oh it gets passed off as just joking but it is clearly Ad Hominem. Like so many others you didn't just say that you disagree with John Clements, instead you referred to his writings are a "rant"? ARMA members often disagree with people on forums but we don't refer to what they say as a "rant". And when someone wrote in this thread that, "This thread has become much more offensive than anything the author of the article might have written" he was not referring to statements by ARMA members. In light of this I don't view ourselves are rude.
We also don't view people outside of ARMA as enemies, but we are often treated that way by people. Case in point, look at the reactions from people anytime new material is put out by ARMA. ARMA members don't react that way when we see new materials from other peope. And we surely don't try to refute marterials that we have not even seen! Rather we analysis and tested new marterials in hard sparring, if it works we use it, if not then we drop it and move on. |
Randall,
All good points, and really i think that they are actually very good points. But in the end, why, despite the things that ARMA apparently don't do to annoy the rest of the WMA community or individuals, why do you think this acrimony remains?
Is it that ARMA has an "attitude" towards the rest of the WMA community but is unable/unwilling to see it?
Is it that there is a perception that ARMA has an "attitude" problem, when in reality it doesn't?
Or is it that the rest of the WMA community have an "attitude" towards ARMA?
All these questions and more will be answered in the next thrilling installment of The Thread That Wouldn't Die (a natural death anyway) 
Christopher
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Maxwell
Location: New Zealand Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Tue 20 Oct, 2009 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Randall
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | Andrew
Overall you post is very one sided. I will try to present another side so as to add balance without adding fuel to any flames. It's just the other side of the coin.
|
Fair enough. I don't know your side of it.
| Quote: | | ARMA members are rude? ARMA members never make the type of public Ad Hominem attacks that are so often made against John Clements. Yet, even in this very thread I was referred to as Ran Unpleasant. Oh it gets passed off as just joking but it is clearly Ad Hominem. Like so many others you didn't just say that you disagree with John Clements, instead you referred to his writings are a "rant"? ARMA members often disagree with people on forums but we don't refer to what they say as a "rant". And when someone wrote in this thread that, "This thread has become much more offensive than anything the author of the article might have written" he was not referring to statements by ARMA members. In light of this I don't view ourselves are rude. |
Actually, I didn't say I disagreed with John Clements at all. It wasn't the "meat" of the text that was the issue (or at least not what I'm talking about here) it was that every few pages the presentation of "Medieval Swordsmanship" would stop and there would be more vitriol. Initially when I read the introduction and first few pages of the book, I sympathised with and even agreed in part with Mr Clements. By the time I got 3/4 of the way through it, however, I was feeling pretty worn down by the continual repeating of the same few points. Hammering those same few things again and again is, in my opinion, a rant. I don't think it was an inappropriate choice of words.
That said, I also don't think I made any ad hominem attacks per se. If I did my apologies.
| Quote: | | We also don't view people outside of ARMA as enemies, but we are often treated that way by people. |
As I mentioned, some former members of ARMA told me that. I made sure to disclose that as it is possible that it is simply bitterness on their part. Others can decide for themselves as to how much weight to put on those comments. Whether it is true or not, it is still going to affect how other people view your group and so it is worth mentioning that those comments are out there.
| Quote: | | Case in point, look at the reactions from people anytime new material is put out by ARMA. ARMA members don't react that way when we see new materials from other peope. And we surely don't try to refute marterials that we have not even seen! Rather we analysis and tested new marterials in hard sparring, if it works we use it, if not then we drop it and move on. |
Well, that's rather the sticking point isn't it 
No-one has seen it yet. Any word on when we will get anything of substance to see?
You'll notice also that I hadn't posted anything in this thread prior to the one you just replied to, as I am withholding judgement on this new material until I know what it is.
It is also worth mentioning that I haven't seen another group who say that "our new material is right, and everyone else is wrong" which is what most people are getting upset about. Very few people have commented on the material, a lot have commented on the perceived attitude behind the presented article.
Regards
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Tue 20 Oct, 2009 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Maxwell wrote: | | It is also worth mentioning that I haven't seen another group who say that "our new material is right, and everyone else is wrong" which is what most people are getting upset about. Very few people have commented on the material, a lot have commented on the perceived attitude behind the presented article. |
More than that, it's been something of a recognizable pattern from ARMA: members post about articles but are not really willing to discuss them (say they can't because they are not the author or keep re-hashing the content (when there is one ) ). When I see articles posted by other groups on forums it's most often by the original author, and he can answer the criticism or comments himself. It's a real discussion, to sum up...
It might not be intended but I see that as a bit condescending: "Here is a very good article, we'll accept all the praise and disregard criticism". There seems to be some unwillingless to admit that interaction with the rest of the community could make the content better.
It's true that some ad hominem attacks have been made, but sometimes the problem comes from a person indeed. Ex-ARMA members tend to say that they left because of JC personality... Is it impossible to discuss such problems? Isn't it worth pointing out? I don't know him at all, note, but this is part of ARMA's perception from the outside.
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
 |
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Tue 20 Oct, 2009 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | It might not be intended but I see that as a bit condescending: "Here is a very good article, we'll accept all the praise and disregard criticism". There seems to be some unwillingless to admit that interaction with the rest of the community could make the content better. |
Condescending? All Craig Peters said in his first post was, "There's a new article from the ARMA up on some of the changes that have been going on in our interpretations in the past three years or so:". Craig didn't say you had to go read the article, praise the article, or change what you are doing. Nor did Craig say that you couldn't talke issue with something in the article. I replied to Steven Reich in my first post not because he had an issue with something in the article but because he had an issue with ARMA saying it took a large step forward in the recreation of these lost arts. Even then my post was composed mainly of questions. Was that really condescending?
| Quote: | | It's true that some ad hominem attacks have been made, but sometimes the problem comes from a person indeed. |
Wait a second, are you trying to justify ad hominem attacks? I hope I'm mis-understanding yourstatement and please do correct me if I am mis-understanding you. Every scholarly disagreement involves two or more people but the disagreement never justifies an ad hominem attacks on any one of the individuals.
| Quote: | | Ex-ARMA members tend to say that they left because of JC personality... Is it impossible to discuss such problems? Isn't it worth pointing out? I don't know him at all, note, but this is part of ARMA's perception from the outside. |
Are you kidding me?! Talk about a dead horse that has run full speed for the past 10 years. That topic is probably second only to edge-hacking. Don't you remember that ARMAtruth website silliness? Don't you remember all of the silly threads about ARMA being a cult? As we are very aware of there is nothing ARMA can do to stop such discussions. However, in any discussion on a public forum where something is said about ARMA that we feel is untrue or out of context you can expect us to reply with a correction. I would expect nothing less from others in regard to their own organizations. And is that something you really want to discuss? It's just gossip, absolutely nothing but gossip. Does that really have value for any of us as we try to recreate the martial arts of our ancestors?
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Oct, 2009 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Randall,
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | Condescending? All Craig Peters said in his first post was, "There's a new article from the ARMA up on some of the changes that have been going on in our interpretations in the past three years or so:". Craig didn't say you had to go read the article, praise the article, or change what you are doing. Nor did Craig say that you couldn't talke issue with something in the article. I replied to Steven Reich in my first post not because he had an issue with something in the article but because he had an issue with ARMA saying it took a large step forward in the recreation of these lost arts. Even then my post was composed mainly of questions. Was that really condescending? |
Frankly, yes, I perceived it like that. The questions you ask are mainly rethorical, and were besides Steven's point. Instead of highlighting the counter-example he gave, you just quoted the part where he said that the article was not right, and responded about matters of method which everyone agree upon. In all the subsequent discussion you carefully avoided talking about what the article said and instead kept on going about how people were refusing advances. Your whole point seem to have been that we should trust you, not the article, that there were great things done inside ARMA. That you knew better than the rest of us. This is what I feel as condescending.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | It's true that some ad hominem attacks have been made, but sometimes the problem comes from a person indeed. |
Wait a second, are you trying to justify ad hominem attacks? I hope I'm mis-understanding yourstatement and please do correct me if I am mis-understanding you. Every scholarly disagreement involves two or more people but the disagreement never justifies an ad hominem attacks on any one of the individuals. |
No, I don't condone ad hominem attacks at all. However, if I act like a jerk, I expect people to point it out (mods, for starters). This does not have to be understood as an element of debate. Ad hominem is not just criticizing someone, it's using this criticism as an argument when you're running short of them. I saw very little of that here... Also note that even Wikipedia points out that ad hominem attacks are not always a fallacy (I'm talking in general here, I don't care nearly enough about it that I'd analyze the whole thread for rethorical structure).
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Ex-ARMA members tend to say that they left because of JC personality... Is it impossible to discuss such problems? Isn't it worth pointing out? I don't know him at all, note, but this is part of ARMA's perception from the outside. |
Are you kidding me?! Talk about a dead horse that has run full speed for the past 10 years. That topic is probably second only to edge-hacking. Don't you remember that ARMAtruth website silliness? Don't you remember all of the silly threads about ARMA being a cult? As we are very aware of there is nothing ARMA can do to stop such discussions. However, in any discussion on a public forum where something is said about ARMA that we feel is untrue or out of context you can expect us to reply with a correction. I would expect nothing less from others in regard to their own organizations. And is that something you really want to discuss? It's just gossip, absolutely nothing but gossip. Does that really have value for any of us as we try to recreate the martial arts of our ancestors? |
Honestly no, I've never seen the ARMAtruth website, I don't really want to discuss these things, and it has zero value for our understanding of past martial arts (as much of this thread and of the original article anyway ). But Christopher has asked "What is the problem with ARMA?", and all of these things are part of the problem. Feel free to point each and everyone of them as irrelevant... I have no horse in this race.
Anyway, I shouldn't have posted in the first place as it helps nothing. I'll stop posting in this thread until there is actual content to discuss.
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Bodorics
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Oct, 2009 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Argh. Randall, the problem is the following (actually I DO think you get it, but it's one thing I assume and it's a different thing that I read): there is a great amount of extremely useful material at ARMA, but except a few of them, they contain the same attacks on others, some articles more, some articles less. As long as the article itself is good and useful, I have no problem with it, though stating personal opinion so often in not-opinion-based articles does seem a bit unprofessional. The problem is that growing bulk of articles with nothing else than personal opinions and attacks, where the only supporting point is "I've been doing this for years", which, honestly, is nothing like a point. In Hungary, it's used quite often as a point though as, in "grand bascinets aren't used in the 15th century, I know that because I'm a curator since 1989" or "with sabers you invariably block with your edge, believe me, I'm sure of it due to my 19 years of experience".
...
So in short, I don't have problems with advance. I don't have problems with new content at ARMA. I don't have problems with ARMA. I DO have problems with trying to "sell" non-content as content.
This would've been a much nicer topic if said article would've only been a PREFACE followed by actual content, in which I would've been interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Oct, 2009 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | I replied to Steven Reich in my first post not because he had an issue with something in the article but because he had an issue with ARMA saying it took a large step forward in the recreation of these lost arts. Even then my post was composed mainly of questions. Was that really condescending? |
I don't think that I had an issue with "ARMA saying it took a large step forward in the recreation of these lost arts." My issue was with inaccuracies or faulty conclusions of the article and pointing the finger at everyone else as being wrong. I pointed out the error of one of the primary assertions of the article (which was never answered). Here is my original post:
| Steven Reich wrote: | I usually don't offer much criticism of articles unless I have something nice to say (and often, not even then). However, there is a lot of statements that basically say, "I know the right way, and no one else does." Sorry, I just can't agree with that.
And if you want evidence, then this statement:
"...defending by Baroque-notions of parry and riposte is antithetical to the sources..."
Now I am unsure of whether or not the author is talking from the context of one particular system. If he is talking merely in terms of German Longsword, then I cannot argue that one way or another as that is not my specialty. However, defending by parry and riposte--for example, I parry an incoming Riverso in Guardia di Testa and then riposte with a Mandritto--absolutely is part of the Bolognese tradition (I just gave you an example). Period. We have literally multiple hundreds of plays in which this is demonstrated in clear Italian. Now I guess we can quibble over whether the Bolognese system is a renaissance system--but I am talking about swordsmanship from the early 1500s (and likely before). To deny this is the truth in terms of Bolognese is to show a complete lack of understanding of this system. It really is that clear in the sources. Note that I am not saying that counterattacks don't exist or that they are not used, but they are certainly not used anywhere near exclusively. |
I actually went back and looked through my posts and the only thing I saw was questioning two basic assumptions of the article: 1. the parry-riposte and 2. everyone else is doing "Renaisssance Swordsmanship" wrong (with the implication that the author is doing it right). I gave examples which countered point 1 and disagreed with point 2. I didn't say anything about ARMA, nor did I say anything about the author. I only addressed the article.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Oct, 2009 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: | | I didn't say anything about ARMA, nor did I say anything about the author. I only addressed the article. |
Steve
I'm sorry if my post appear to suggest that you were saying something about ARMA or the author. Clearly you did not. I was only attempting to show that Craig and my posts were not condescending.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Oct, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Randall,
It may not have been your intent to be condescending, but it’s fairly clear based on the responses in this thread, that some of the people reading the article and your responses do perceive a condescending current in the message.
That said it’s entirely possible that many of the people here have either misunderstood you or have an axe to grind, personally or organizationally. Nevertheless, misunderstood or not, the net effect has been an overall poor presentation of your message, and unsurprisingly, equally poor reception of it. This is ultimately not a problem for the people that are perceiving condescension in your choice of words, or in the word choice of the author of the article.
Best regards,
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Maurer
|
| Posted: Fri 23 Oct, 2009 12:02 pm Post subject: Whats the problem? |
|
|
| Christopher Lee wrote: | Can i ask a serious question to the general readership?
Just what is the "problem/issue" about ARMA? This thread got fair up my nose and seemingly up other people's noses, but why?
What is it about ARMA that seemingly raises the blood pressure of other, non-ARMA, WMA practitioners?
I don't think that there is a ARMA presence in Australia (if there is, i've never heard of it), so i've had nil contact with the group. But after having viewed the discussions in here over the years there is a recurring theme of some sort of "problem" with ARMA.
Now, to be fair, i don't know if ARMA has a problem with any one else, they might be perfectly happy doing their thing.
As mentioned above, "the rift has widened"; but i'm curious to know what was the cause of the rift in the first place, how did the rift arise; how long ago did the rift begin?
It seems that many people know what underlays the whole background to this, but i'm afraid that the late comers (like me) don't have the context. So either things can be discussed in a free and frank manner or they can't be; should we shy away from difficult stuff because it might put a nose out of joint, when seemingly many noses are already well and truly broken? I don't expect anything to change because attitudes are well and truly entrenched, perhaps just information. But i wonder if this topic can be tackled without it degenerating into the mother of all pit bull fights?
Christopher
"If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating
coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also,
look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating
coxcomb?" |
Are you serious? After all the acerbic talk back and forth, mostly about One man, not an organization, you still dont get it. ?
It is about one man's vision, and how that vision has affected the world of HEMA for the better and the worse.
One man who has the ability to influence others. Also the ability to isolate said others from the rest of the HEMA world.
Why? Only he knows. We should not now or ever expect the relevations from the Rosetta Stone article to be made public. That is not the ARMA way. This whole thing was reminiscent of a Hollywood saying:"If they aint talking about ya, you're a Hasbeen." Good PR on JCs part. I am impressed.
So many people are inspired or otherwise moved by this, that it has to have some relevance, other than just the opportunity to insult the ARMA director. I have personal experience with this, and it was fun. I enjoyed it. But it is not conducive to learning these Arts. Any man who so cannonizes his words, should expect a little disagreement.
And Christopher Lee, you are truly fortunate for not knowing the intricacies of the "problems with ARMA" . Avoid it and you will be better off for it.
And as far as Ran Pleasant goes, I dont know you, but your words fail to convince. You represent the ARMA poorly. and I'm really amused that he allows you to respond. I love it when you preface your posts with, "I dont speak for JC," Digging in deeper. Especially since i remember how you were treated on the E list several years ago, I thought you;d go the way of others who became disgruntled at the ineffective leadership.
The insults you were subjected to were demoralizing to many of us.
But low and behold here you are today, defending the faith, still drinking it up. I salute you. So many curious fellows associated with this.. it really is a fascinating subject, but alas, i have to go train now. That is what is really relevant.
BTW Dont you think your 15 minutes are up? I know mine are.
Kevin Maurer
Meyer Freifechter Guild
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Lee
Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 160
|
| Posted: Fri 23 Oct, 2009 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for that; yep, i had "got it".
But now i think that my questions have been answered to my own satisfaction. I must say that it has been illuminating and at times actually informative. I have formed an opinion of the situation and the individuals involved, for better or worse, based upon the exchanges i've read.
So, i think that i've no more to say upon this topic.
Ciao
Christopher
"a very dull fool; his only gift is in devising impossible slanders:
none but libertines delight in him; and the
commendation is not in his wit, but in his villany.."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Fri 23 Oct, 2009 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Christopher
Actually you got nothing of any real value from Kevin. If Kevin was truthful he would have told you that he did not leave ARMA due to John Clements leadership, rather he was kicked out of ARMA for extremely bad behavior. The director gave Kevin every chance to change his behavior but he refused and kept insulting the membership. By that point it was the ARMA membership that were screaming for Kevin to be booted. Finally after it became clear that Kevin was not going to change his behavior John had no choice but to cancel Kevin's membership in ARMA.
And speaking of truthfullness, I have absolutely no idea what Kevin was talking about in regard to me being insulted and treated by on the private ARMA forum. I have been a member of ARMA since 2000 and although I am far from being a good martial artist I have always been treated with respect by the director and the membership (excluding the insults to the membrship by Kevin).
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
 |
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Fri 23 Oct, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This would've been a much nicer topic if said article would've only been a PREFACE followed by actual content, in which I would've been interested. |
Public announcement
The article is only a preface. Content coming soon...
I know we are all still waiting on it and that it hasn't come as soon as promised. I'd say be patient, but you all have you own work and study and practice and lives. You weren't holding your breath beforehand for some special revelation from ARMA and you aren't now. That's fine and as it should be. When the new material gets published, in a book or online, then it will be out and there is no point in getting worked up about it before then. That's what I hear people saying. But for us in ARMA, we are really excited about this new material and feel like we are involved in a explosive time of progress and learning for our craft. The purpose of the article, as I understand it, is to convey that excitement while offering up a few tidbit teasers as preface for the direction of the "new" material.
Greg Coffman
ARMA DFW
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Carew
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2010 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
When will the articles/content that formed the subject of this thread be available? Enquiring minds want to know etc.
Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
|
|
|
|
|
David Lohnes
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Mar, 2010 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just found this thread. Scanning through it, I had the following thought.
I'm not so sure it's a bad sign for the HEMA community when different teachers/practitioners/schools get into verbal smackdowns and trash talking. Aren't such things a part of the HEMA tradition, even going back to the masters themselves? I look at guys like Hugh Knight and John Clements who have a little bit of swagger about them and cultivate a personal following as embodying an integral part of the HEMA tradition. You see it a little bit in Silver and in the undeniable influence of personalities like Dardi and Lichtenauer in the tradition.
I mean, in the larger moral sense rudeness and dismissive insults and hubris are bad; but at the same time these problems are not unique to the modern students of various schools. They are a timeless characteristic of the tradition. What I'm waiting for is for the leaders and key membership of various factions to start throwing gloves at each other. Then we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic