[Randall Pleasant]

[Steven H]

[Jean Thibodeau]

I give up, there are only so many ways one can ask questions and still not get simple and direct answers.

The only honest answer is to say, " I can't tell you / ask the other guy / it's going to be in the book ", everything else is just arguing for arguments sake.

If the goal is to expand knowledge communicating ideas become " THE PRIORITY ".

If the goal is to promote an organization, establish status as the prime authority on the subject, run a business by selling one's ideas, books or memberships to a group then communicating information becomes secondary to self-promotion: It's not scholarship it's ego and a business. A legitimate goal/ambition, maybe, but not why most of us post here.

[Greg Mele]

Bill,

Thank you - you summed up the issue perfectly.

Randall,

You always want to discuss how "ARMA unfriendly" "that other board" or any number of other places are. But it is a lie. What those places have been are unfriendly to the sort of behavior that you are exhibiting here; the same behavior that has gotten *you* banned in a number of places. That is not an anti-ARMA agenda, it is an anti-trolling and recruitment agenda. Indeed, it's amazing how the same "dedicated scholars" you lauded for years you now call "disgruntled", "dishonorable" and lacking in knowledge of John's "real teachings" because they left the organization.

The truth is that *you* are quick to critique, criticize and cry foul, but if one tracks your posting history just here on myArmoury the pattern of behavior is perfectly consistent. You always point to John's essays, John's videos, and refer to the work of "ARMA scholars" and why it has established that others are in the wrong. John himself remains silent; *you* are his mouthpiece.

As a mouthpiece you are immune to discussion, legitimate debate or data. The only time I have ever seen you change your position is when John has "refined" the official ARMA doctrine. (Like the constantly moving definition of what a "flat parry" is.) As with this thread, you speak a great deal, but say very little. People post direct quotes from period sources that contradict what *you* state as the ARMA position on xyz and you wave it off, but not with clear, direct data, only vague references. People ask direct questions and you dissemble, or tell them to ask John, knowing full well that he will never answer. When called on this behavior, you do what you are doing now - you stomp your foot, state that everyone is out to get ARMA, that we are fiercely jealous of John, whatever. But maybe the simpler answer is that, after years and years of this behavior, people are tired of your trolling.

To my knowledge there is not one public example of you teaching or lecturing, not one bit of scholarship that you have produced, not one video clip we can see of you fencing - that is not true of the people you are arguing with here. I'm not sure that any of us even known what your rank within ARMA is. So, after all of these years, what credentials or authority do *you* Randall Pleasant, have within your organization, or to speak for ARMA and its director?

If you *don't* speak for them, then these must be your personal comments, and you should state them as such. In which case, we still need to know why you hold them. When and where did you study these new, "revolutionary" interpretations, was it directly from John, and whom have you used them against? Not just within your group, but outside of it? Which of the major texts are you working from, for how long, and what do you find in them to support these conclusions and to refute the issues put to you by others in this thread?

You see, those are the sorts of questions that Christian, Bill, Steve, William, myself and pretty much every other serious instructor in the HEMA community debate, discuss and *answer* on a daily basis. If you won't or can't do that, then you are either a troll, plain and simple, or a cipher, posting on the forums merely to recruit for your organization. Either, to my mind, violates the purpose of forums like this.

[Sander Marechal]

[Greg Mele]

I am pretty sure that my last post violates the ToS for the forum here, for which I apologize.

I think that everyone here has listed the same complaints I have, and that centers around the same issue: accountability. Basically, you can't have a conversation about something "revolutionary" if the revolutionists don't actually want to explain what it is or how it is derived from common sources. It seems that Randall isn't going to respond to those questions, and I really don't want to bog down Nathan's forum further. People can read the article and this thread and draw their own conclusions. Really, doing more than that just keeps drawing attention to a theory that, until John decides to articulate it, is more marketing than anything else.

Best wishes to all.

Greg

[Joe Fults]

[David Teague]

At 9 rather frustrating pages of circular arguments and lack of any real information forthcoming I have renamed this thread

Passing the Kidney Stone of Reconstructing European Fighting Arts

If you ever have had the misfortune of passed a Kidney Stone, you'll know why...

Cheers,

David

[Chad Arnow]

Some points I need to make:

*The politics of other forums can be kept on those forums. We don't need to hash them out here.

*Many people are straying close to the line or have indeed crossed it. Stop or you'll find yourself having to go to some other forum to have the same old arguments.

*Don't take it upon yourself to moderate this forum or tell others how to post.

*If you're tired of this thread, stop participating in it. Posting how tired you are of a thread only serves to bump it back to the top. If you're truly sick of it, stay the hell out of it.

*Moderating is sometimes a crappy job I don't wish on my worst enemies. Threads like this one are the poster children for Moderator job dissatisfaction.

Please do not comment on anything I've posted here. Message me privately if you have something to say about this post. Stay on topic and stay nice.

[Todd M. Sullivan]

[Randall Pleasant]

Todd

......

May you have much success in you efforts.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW

[Hubertus Bruijnen]

pfff, page nine, finally

Sticking you neck out has never been easy. It can turn to nine pages of discussion.
At least there is attention for these interpretations, wether people agree or not.

I have watched the filmclips that were imbedded in the link, I will skip the discussion about angles because that has been thoroughly commented here.

What I found interesting is the interpretation of the key. ('turning the key').

For the sake of interest I will try some of it, just to see how the feel of these interpretations is.

I just read the article superficially, so I cannot comment on that yet.

What I can say now is that I generally respect everybody from every organisation who makes a serious effort of doing research, trying out what you feel is right and try to polish your findings. Even if I disagree, I will still respect the researcher. Writing, translating, interpreting....long nights and long weekends.
Let's not forget that.

Cheers,
Bert B.