White Warlock

I have a small library of maybe a hundred martial art related books, and maybe about 40 tapes (UFC 1-10, some instructional, Japanese flicks, etc). A few of my books were hit with mold, so i had to toss them. Yes, i'm willing to part with most of them, but not at this time. I found most of my books in garage sales, used book stores, and direct from authors. A book called The Fighting Arts by Reid and Croucher, has a unique bent on coverage of martial arts history. Some good info, but not altogether accurate. Martial Arts - Traditions, History, People by John Corcuron and Emil Farkas is the most thorough collection of info i've seen to date, but it also has some errors. I don't believe either of those are still in print.

What?!? What planet are you from?

Will chime in again. DM brings up the point that i have encountered many times as well. Whereby people would discuss dim mak and refer to effects based on anatomically incorrect information. I have read books written on dim mak, and have found 'none' of them to have any validity or credibility. I discussed the supposed basis for dim mak studies with my kalaripayit instructor way back when. He stated, with respect to his instructors and co-practitioners, that much of it is based on superstition and the ability to influence people based on the 'fear.' He compared it to voodooism and how dim mak works in cultures that are rife with superstition, but don't fare too well in places like the United States. As to accupressure and acupuncture, i've discussed the inference of a relationship between that of dim mak and these two with a certified acupuncturist. He stated that it is concievable that misapplication of acupuncture could create disruptions, but not to the extent that they would cause death. He also totally dismissed the idea that accupressure could be applied with malice. It is an interesting topic, and one that should be thoroughly researched. But, to this date, i have not seen such. This gives me the impression that those who 'claim' to know, are in fact practicing their 'voodoo' by keeping the mystique of dim mak alive.

I participated in the thread you are referring to and i can honestly say that you misunderstood what was being discussed or only captured part of the discussion.

hehe

High school wrestling is a variation of freestyle. It is also intense and the techniques you use there could serve you the rest of your life. However, your mileage may vary, as a good coach makes all the difference. Here's a few online clips: http://www.lutte-wrestling.com/videowrestling.html

Man, that's devotion for you.

The one who has experienced the type of tournament and the rules involved. Tournaments are nice little test buckets, but they are not a one-all measure of a martial artist. Hell, a good dancer could do well in forms (Jet Li, Van Damme).

Nice

yeppers, i would say u just underwent 'part' of the training there, as opposed to the test.

kuntaofighter. Do you study dim mak, or are you doing what so many others do... which is is to speak of it in mystical ambiguities because they have little to no knowledge of it?

We're not?!? Back to the topic at hand: "Consequences."

Hehe... i'll bite. I would say your body, and any surrounding objects, would be the tools. The training would be learning how to use those tools. The tools have always been there, but the difference would be the quality of those tools, the understanding of thier use, and your experience with them. I.e., if you don't work out, you you may end up with rusty tools that might break on first use. And, if you understand how to use them, you still may not have had sufficient experience with them to use them efficiently, forcefully, or with precision.

May you do well gmc.

Gheinisch/Greg, With respect to you, and to others, i let it drop. However, this gentleman seems to think my silence is some sort of invitation for him to toss my name (or handle) around and spew out insults. With all due respect, the guy is trolling... and i see no reason to sit idly by while he misinterprets my silence. So, with all due respect to you and others in this community, i resume. Actually, that is not what it is all about, but since you believe such is the case... it does cause me to wonder why you have so very little. wckm, let me make this very clear before i continue with this post. You have indicated in this thread that you are not knowledgeable about herbs, about martial arts in general, about wing chun, conditioning, 'Western' medicine, the scientific community, or even about flouride. So, with all due respect, what is the purpose of your continued arguments? Is it you wish to make it very clear to us that which you do not know? Well, we get it. You don't know... let's move on. Yes, your tone is exceedingly disrespectful and it encourages others to show disrespect towards you, even when it is not otherwise in their nature to do so. As to your inferences, i can do nothing about your lack of respect for me or others. That is clearly not a problem i can address in mere posts on a board that allows anonymity. As to the topic... it is lost in the miasma of hostilities you have exhibited, due to your opting to perceive said posts as personal affronts, rather than as what they were intended to be: informative, advisorial, and otherwise. To perform a quick rundown of the issues, we first have the topic at hand... that of boxers and gloves. In it, a discussion arose regarding that of wearing gloves and the harm associated with not wearing them. At a point, you recommended dit da jow. This recommend was not quite contra-indicated, but was given a yellow flag by at least one other poster. Said yellow flag was perceived, by you, as an affront to your person. Thus ensued a myriad of flawed arguments to validate your initial recommendation. It was then that i addressed the flawed arguments (not right, not wrong, merely flawed), and also showed concern regarding the blind trust many display in subjecting the human body to various plants (herbs), externally or internally. My comments were not intended to be an affront to you, although i may have come out a bit strong (which i tend to do at times, and for which i apologize). It was intended as a means to try to ensure you maintain a 'reasoned' discourse and that the 'yellow flags' not be arbitrarily dismissed merely because something worked for one person, or even a few. The fact of the matter is, herbs are plants. Some plants can kill you, others can get you very sick. If you have an allergy to a particular plant, it might as well be hemlock, for it will have the same fatal effect, especially if taken internally. When you grab a batch of 14 or so herbs, which you did not test previously on your person, and then subject your body to them either regularly in small doses, or once in large dose, you could cause significant damage (external/internal, acute/chronic, fatal). Also, herbs, just as any drug, do not work the same for all persons. Everyone's metabolism and chemical makeup is different and it is these differences that determine why herbal concoctions will not work for all persons. When you visit a doctor, and if your problem is properly diagnosed (diagnosis is the real problem here, not medicine), then the doctor may prescribe medicines to address your problem. However, if the medicine does not treat your problem effectively, the doctor may need to prescribe a different medication. That's not to say he misdiagnosed (although that is definitely a possibility), but that not all medicines will work equally with all people. In fact, rarely a violent allergic reaction would occur with a particular medicine. But here are the things that need to be understood. The majority of Western medicines are actually extracts. Extractions of various chemical compositions, from plants, animals, and even minerals. With a medication, you are given a very high dose of 'one' particular type of chemical composition. With an herbal concoction of only 10 herbs, you are given a mild to medium dose of as many as 200 chemical compositions. And while a side effect or allergic reaction may be less severe with herbs, it is also far far more likely. As well, the specific benefits / side-effects to an extracted single chemical composition is far more specific and predictable, whereas herbs are not. So, while you may sit there and tell us that your sifu has suffered no ill effects, what is to say this is the truth? His liver may, in fact, have suffered due to the body's response to some herbs included in his dit da jow. Or not... And to close. wckm, i have been studying for quite a long time, possibly longer than your sifu. I don't know you. You don't know me. Refrain from insulting or posing derogatories. - WW

pfft

Sounds like jailbait to me. I wouldn't pursue it further. An adult would not have played phone games. A disturbed adult maybe, but unlikely.

It's too bad you didn't opt to read those two articles i presented. wckm, i'm not trying to be nitpicky, despite you assertions to the contrary. However, you repeatedly gloss over the fact you are saying dit da jow serves as long term protection. It doesn't. It is a liniment for short-term injuries. Particularly, bruising. So, when you say it is for long term protection, i view that as an inference to mystical properties. Nothing is going to prevent ailments associated with conditioning exercises, except refraining from doing conditioning exercises, or wearing appropriate gear (hand wraps, gloves, etc). I checked it out. He doesn't attribute 'long term protection' or 'prevention' as properties or benefits of dit da jow. Insults again? Anyway, you do realize this whole discussion on dit da jow is actually a hijack of this thread, don't you?

Why, indeed it does! How did you know?

visualize a chickenbutt.

DM does make a point. Have you considered the possibility you may be exuding a degree of disrespect to others?

Lucky, one word: "Consequences"

Agreed Vito. wckm, I iterate what i wrote at the end of my last post: I will stick by this and not ask you to clarify anything you post in the future. I will, however, respond to some of your comments. I suppose that is part of the problem. You seem to believe it is a contest... i don't. Then don't. Stop arguing. Instead discuss. No need to try to win. Instead, grow. What you have learned thusfar isn't the endall of all things. In fact, if they are 'unsubstantiated' thoughts, there's really no need to cling to them so defiantly. I know what dit da jow is. I used it and even made some myself. So what? Does that make me an expert? No. Does it make you one that you use it? No. So... what's your point of arguing this? I mean, you really don't know what you're talking about, right? Well then... how about reading these articles, written by someone who 'is' an expert? John Crescione: http://www.wingchun.org/txt/misc/jow.html http://www.wingchun.org/txt/misc/jow2.html Oh, and if you want me to give you a breakdown of each and every herb listed... do your own research. Seriously though, i can do that for you if you want me to. No biggie to me. It would be good rehashing for me, since i looked into all of this ages ago... before the internet made research so friggin' easy. The thing is, I think it's important to 'understand' what it is you are subjecting you body to, lest you accidently kill yourself based on 'faith' alone. For example, i don't use red tiger balm because i'm allergic to capsicum. Knowing what your body tolerates, and doesn't tolerate, goes hand in hand with learning what it is you intend to subject your body to. Wckm, that's really where i'm coming from with part of my earlier discussions. Without understanding WHY it is used, HOW it works, even IF it works, you're going on blind faith. Which, unfortunately, is the reason many practitioners continue to study things, past on from generation to generation, that are completely and utterly inapplicable in a real confrontation... but that look good when practiced in slow motion. It's because they fail to question. Ahh, okay. So what? Of course he uses it. I never said dit da jow was garbage. Only that you were attributing powers and abilities to it that it truly does not have. Umm, well... actually... you did. And that's part of where i was having a problem. You weren't stating this 'knowledge' or 'experience,' nor have you presented yourself as an expert in the field (in fact, you stated otherwise). You were merely saying, "it is so, i believe it, so begone." Well... what am i supposed to do with that? Follow blindly someone who presents himself as all-knowing, all-condenscending, and me... a mere peon... could not possibly have the capacity to understand such divine knowledge as you, yourself possess? Pfft. Umm.. what facts? Opinions maybe... but facts? If you can remember the interviews, vaguely, and yet not anything else, how can you sit there and be so dang sure you recall it correctly in the first place? I think that's part of my point there wckm. I mean, when i state that children are/were being forced into slavery, beaten, mutilated and killed in western Africa, to produce cocoa beans for chocolate producing companies here in the U.S. and abroad, at least i can point the inquisitive in the right direction... even though i only saw one documentary on it... eight years ago. If it's important enough, you would remember the details. If you wish to use such things as validation to your arguments... wouldn't it be logical to argue with 'concrete' data? I mean, there's two routes to take here. One of educating, and the other of 'influencing.' I'm for educating, not building a cult following. Something to consider. Umm, no. Fallacious reasoning is actually quite clearly spelled out and courses on logical thinking are offered at most colleges and universities. Fallacious reasoning isn't an issue of perception. It is an issue of presentation of argument, of fact, and of communicating. It is common, and is applied most heavily in political arenas... and in marketing. But, please understand... it is not a logical way of thinking. Nice try, no cigar. Dude, you don't know me. Really, you don't. I've travelled, but never to just visit. I became a resident of whatever place i was at, not a spectator. I've studied cultures, not merely from some silly set of textbooks, but from being 'part' of that culture. But, why should i have to justify myself to you? Why? Well, because you just did yet one more attack on me... stating that i am somehow culturally unaware. What's with you anyway? You're consistently trying to paint me as something i am not, in order to argue that 'not' part. Well dude, i'm not culturally unaware... so how about trying to actually FIND a flaw in me, rather than MAKE THEM UP? It's interesting though. I mean, what does being 'culturally aware' really have to do with this discussion? That other cultures are more into fallacious reasoning, and therefore fallacious reasoning is an acceptable way of both thinking and communicating? Well dude, it's not. A=B does not equate to A=C, no matter what language or culture you belong to. Hmm, i could have sworn i already addressed this... but... okay, i'll bite. There have been substantial new tests on flouride (btw, the earlier test was not committed by researchers, as i already stated, and it was not tested through a 50 year period. In fact, if i recall correctly, the test lasted only a few years, or less). The problem is not the tests, nor the evidence to support the allegations that flouride is unhealthy. The problem, as i indicated earlier, is marketing. Corporations have a helluva lot invested in their products, whose use of flouride, in minute quantities, is presented as a beneficial whitener and cleaner. They've been pushing this stuff on people for decades. Let me give you a better example of the problem. It took decades to finally get tobacco industries to start paying people off for cancer cases. And why? Because a report slipped into the wrong hands, and those wrong hands... a reputable scientist that was hired by the tobacco industry to dispute allegations of tobacco being hazardous, was unwilling to play the game. In fear of his life, he nonetheless presented evidence and thus began the cascade of evidence, provided by other scientists that were previously in fear of their life. Dude, it's not the 'good ol' boy' being the problem here. It's big business commiting crimes, and not wanting to lose a profit. Therefore, they're willing to commit more crimes, against reputable scientists, to protect their investments. Even though tobacco and flouride are not outlawed, or even considered illegal, they are nonetheless contributors to health problems. Tobacco industries have been sued countless times in the past, but it wasn't until documentation was presented, that they started actually losing in court. Nowadays, they are having to payout billions of dollars in settlements. The toothpaste corporations don't want that same nightmare in their court. So, what do they do? What did the tobacco industries do? They hire spin doctors. Professional public relations firms, whose job it is to spin things around, discredit reputable professionals, create extremist rallies that make the whole thing look like outrageous 'hippie communes.' There are quite a few excellent books i can direct you to that would disturb the hell out of you. My brother, a physicist and professor at a local college, brought these books to my attention... and they were quite the eye-opener. Of course, now you're going to say, "ahh... your brother is a physicist! That explains everything!" My response to that would be that i respect him, both as my brother and as a very 'informed' man. Yet he is far more a 'hippie' than a scientist. In fact, he spends much of his spare time growing herbs in his backyard. But see... why is it i have to justify my life, or the lives of people i know, to someone who simply doesn't want to communicate logically? No reason whatsoever, and i'm done with this tangent. True, but then again, nobody asked me to substantiate any of it. And, if they did, i would gladly oblige (being i have such an immense ego). As to my sig other with thyroid cancer... it was inappropriate of me to present this in my arguments. But, moreso inappropriate of you to attempt to counter argue with it. Bad taste on both our parts. Let us please refrain from going there again, even if to try and prove a point. Sounds like a decent argument, but it is incorrect. If i have an opinion on something, i don't have to substantiate my opinion. However, if i state that something does this or that... it is no longer an opinion, but a statement of attribution. When you claim that leeches heal people, it is not something we should be taking at face value... especially if such can actually, possibly, be harmful to others. Really, do you think it is an opinion to believe the world is somewhat round? Or that drinking strychnine is a good way to get rid of rabies? One is information, based on scientific evidence. The other is ignorance, or misinformation... that will kill you. Neither are opinions and many of the foundation comments you presented in various parts of your earlier postings are not opinions either. Although, you did present some opinions at a later time, but... unfortunately, those opinions were presented in a substantive fashion. I.e., you presented your 'opinions' as if they were evidence to support your earlier claims. Supposition posed as evidence. May you enjoy and grow from your continued studies.

MTF, how about looking up the "Black Cobra?"