What is "really" going on here?

"OldFist" is the new and official Forum Arbitrator. "I plan to do a straight forward job of moderating, just upholding the mission statement of the forums, trying to make sure that everyone is courteous, and that no one is rudely intimidated by anyone else."

Moderators: gmattson, Oldfist

What is "really" going on here?

Postby gmattson » Tue May 03, 2005 10:42 am

I'm sure we will find out before long. But one thing is sure. . . it has nothing to do with what started this last "cyber-attack" on these forums.

Lets look at what the "apparent" terrible statement Bill made that got Laird's started:

The word "strawman"!

I guess Bill has been pretty careful about what he's been saying, so in order to put this cyber-attack into motion, Laird had to "redefined" the term "strawman" to mean something unethical, deceitful, and fraudulent and basically an out and out lie!

Quite a few people (myself included) jumped in and tried to explain what the term strawman meant, according to debating and dictionary definitions, but these posts fell on deaf ears.

For whatever reasons, the small and very active group of posters that claim they were "protecting" Van's reputation from what was a completely bogus argument, continue with their cyber-attack, rallying around a completely false and itself, a perfect "strawman" argument.

I applaud this group's imaginative approach to build such a massive cyber-attack on these forums, based on such a ridiculous and bogus claim. Since all the other attacks were built on this bogus claim to defend Van's reputation, I see no need to rehash the rest of BS that was heaped into the frey.

Bill and others who weren't on the "inside", actually took the bait and got "hooked". Imagine. . . someone as intelligent as Bill, attempting to defend himself by saying:
Hey man, I said Van was using a 'strawman' argument, I didn't say he was unethical, deceitful, and fraudulent and basically an out and out lier!

It must have felt good to those who orchestrated this whole thing, to ridicule a moderator and at the same time, possibly "bring down" a group of forums, run by someone who doesn't subscribe to the groups' bullying tactics.

I've been warned by other forum owners who have been monitoring this site. I've been warned by Van, who would have banned the group of you in a second had you tried to him what you have pulled on Bill.

But stupid me. . . Because you have been around for awhile, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, provide every opportunity to mend fences. I even brought in someone to moderate the situation. . . just in case my assessment of this group was wrong. And naturally that move was portrayed as something "unmanly" and Laird immediately posted an insulting "hiding behind a woman's skirt" comment.

So whatever your motives for pulling off this cyber-attack, I wish you good luck. You've been "outed" though, so please stop trying to make Van out to be your cyber martyr that you are protecting from the evils of Bill and George. Tell it like it is.

I don't think it will come as any surprise to the other 2000+ readers.
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 6036
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Mount Dora, Florida

Postby Rick Wilson » Tue May 03, 2005 2:08 pm

I guess this is once again a case of experts differing, because the experts I have accessed completely disagree with your dismissal of the term and what it implies.

The experts and references I have consulted completely disagree with you, George.

The statement I made is absolutely true based on the experts in my corner.

I posted as I believed in my heart. This is how I have always posted on this site.

But you are right in that Bill’s past history of person insults against me certainly have influenced how I saw the situation.

I have always said we cannot help but interpret things through our own filters so certainly I see through my own.

You cannot help but see things through your own filter as well because this is human nature.

You like Bill and feel when he insults people he is just writing too fast to realize the insult he has just posted or he is just a bit of a pompous ass and that is what is showing so you have dismissed every insult he has ever thrown at me.

That is your filter. Bill is just good old Bill in your mind and he seems to be able to do no wrong because of it.

I do not stand corrected on my interpretation of the strawman argument. I disagree entirely with your interpretation and my posts were based on that fact and that fact alone.

But I am now part of a conspiracy of some evil sort.

Did my honest response to Bill’s question of what went wrong between he and I has fuel this bizarre thought of conspiracy?

My honest answer was very blunt and, I guess, pretty harsh.

I have ignored this question a number of times in the past because I felt a public answer may be embarrassing for Bill but finally decided if he wants to know he should know.

There is no conspiracy going on here. Just people who saw (right or wrong WE saw it) yet another insult thrown out by Bill and had enough.

We chose not to dismiss it for someone writing too fast or someone just being pompous yet again.

I guess, as you have said in the past and it is fact, that this is your home and if you want Bill to be excused for his insults for the reasons you have stated then that is how it will be in your house.

But there is no conspiracy.

(And you might be surprised to hear the emails some of the 2000+ send.)
Rick Wilson


Postby gmattson » Tue May 03, 2005 3:22 pm

I'm terribly disappointed that things have deteriorated to this point. You run a tight ship on your forum and when martial arts are discussed, you've never made me feel that you were trying to put down anyone who might not agree with you.

However, I feel you got "sucked" into this latest attack on Bill. When I call Bill a "pompous ass", it is in reference to his continual calling attention to his credentials, background and remarkable experiences.

If anything, Bill is, in spite of his posting "pomposity" (is that a word?), a fairly insecure person, constantly looking for approval from us all and acceptance of things he writes.

You will notice how, no matter what is posted by someone he respects, that he will attempt to gain that person's approval by pouring out all kinds of background, education, degrees and experiences to validate the fact that he is on your side and not only agrees with your assessment, but he has been practicing that! :)

Now I certainly couldn't say all this about many others on these forums. . . even if it is absolutely true. They would take it the wrong way and would attack me mercilessly.

Bill will, I know, simply say, "yea, that's me!"

That is why I can accept Bill's warts while seeing in him one of the finest human beings on this planet and I will defend him 100% when he is being attacked without reason.

Now to the statement that Laird's and now your definition of "strawman". . .

Laird used it to justify his ugly and unwarranted attack on Bill, me and anyone else who attempted to mediate. I can't believe he initiated this attack based on anything he looked up in a dictionary, since no one else has been able to find this outrageous explanation for what Bill was thinking when he used the term.
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 6036
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Mount Dora, Florida

Postby Guest » Tue May 03, 2005 3:51 pm

George, I never attacked Bill, just his posting style. Lets stop the distortion of the facts.

I didn't make up anything, I got the interpretations I posted from the U of M.

Here is the site:


I keep getting you and Bill claiming I've wronged Bill. I asked bill to prove his claim, Old Fist comes on and says the tournament is over. WTF?

I'll ask you to do the same thing George, show me where I have harmed Bill.

If neither of you are prepared to do so then I sugest, you have no case, this is just a witch hunt. I suggest you both owe me an appology for sullying my name and starting this ridiculous campaign.

Now it is my attention to not post on any forum other than Vans and Ricks, but that can't happen if my name is dragged through the mud on other pages, please leave me in peace so I can go my own way.

Thank you!

Postby Bill Glasheen » Tue May 03, 2005 4:53 pm


I read your site on the strawman argument. It's a good one. Thanks.

It's becoming apparent to me why there can be so much misunderstanding. Let's take the following paragraph.

This is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics, since the person using the Straw Man has so little confidence in their own position that they cannot even address the real position of their opponent! At the heart of the Straw Man Argument is deception.

A subsequent line of logic was set up which was meant to infer that I was calling Van unethical, cowardly, a liar, etc., etc.

There are several major flaws here.

1) I found it on the internet; it must be true!!! Let's all be careful, folks. Check numerous sources. This is one person's tretise on what the debating tactic is. It's his spin on it.

But more importantly...

2) We are discussing ideas and methods. If I call something a bad idea or a bad method, it does not imply that I think the person is bad.

And finally... This was taken out of context. Let's look at this same passage again, only let's include the two line before.
This is a related tactic called deliberate ignorance. It will also include attempts to generate numbers out of the air to defend a Straw Man position.

This is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics, since the person using the Straw Man has so little confidence in their own position that they cannot even address the real position of their opponent! At the heart of the Straw Man Argument is deception.

Wow... Kinda changes the whole interpretation of that paragraph, don't you think?

Chill, guys. You've done some good research. Now please read carefully. It's all there.

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17298
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Postby Stryke » Tue May 03, 2005 6:15 pm

Thanks Bill for addressing the issue and stating your point of veiw .

GEM theres no hidden agenda . This has been mentioned before , this kind of thing does lead to an us vs them mentality IMHO

I want the forums to be productive and positive without any major insults or slights .

Postby Stryke » Tue May 03, 2005 6:29 pm

I want to state that i`m not interested in arguing here .

It wasnt long ago that I posted that I was considering leaving the forum because of the undercurrents I felt .

The only reason I now post is because It seems I`m one of the players in this and I seek resolution .

to not contribute my opinion to it would be dishonest IMHO .

I`m sure the vast majority out there all see it one way or the other and are all sitting there shaking there heads , and perhaps laughing at us (probably I would)

Postby Bill Glasheen » Tue May 03, 2005 7:18 pm

Beat you to it. I laugh at myself first!


My god... I told GEM the other day that I don't take MYSELF that seriously. I am most proud of my fruit-o-the-loom shorts. If the old guys could do sanchin in diapers, well then there you go!

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17298
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Postby Guest » Tue May 03, 2005 7:47 pm

What a can a worms!

Bill you make some good points.

For the record, while I've got your attention. It has never been my intention to insult you. I was only trying to take you to task for your style of posting. I was trying to point something out to you for your consideration. And I did so using the same device you use all the time. The you just don't understand barb. A tactic that many find offensive.

Weather you realize it or not several folks on the forums take offense at some of your tactics. Weather or not you mean any offence by these tactics is mute,offence has been taken.

Just as weather or not I meant any harm or not is mute, you feel you have been fouled. Please accept my assurance Bill I mean you harm, I appologise for hurting your feelings. Possible I hammered my point a little more than required to make it. But hell I still failed to get it across.

I was just trying to point out how you sometimes cheese off some of your fellow forum members. GEM does this to me all the time. I have found it quite helpful,I've run into a lot less conflict since I've stopped refering to nameless folks as the lotus or two stepping dance queens.

Hey now we have nameless groups known as the experts, the traditionalists and the realists. :roll:I try to stay clear of that trap as well. Wouldn't it be great if we could just chat with out all the hidden stuff that Marcus refers too!

I decided to fall on the grenade for the team and point some of these issues out to you. And boy did things blow up for me. :roll:

Bill the straw man post was about telling you that the term might be derogatory. It wasn't about you and Van per say. You have used the term in the past, I've always felt it was rude, to me it equates to thats BS or your a liar. Most people would find offence with this no?

The style I used in my post was your standard you just don't understand tone. When we read your posts that have this your don't understand tone we are left to ponder if your telling us we are stupid, or are you just saying we are so entry level in the martial arts that we just don't get it. Neither choice is very palitable.

So in my straw man post I have used the same device. And you are left to ponder does it mean your to stupid to understand the term, or your deliberately flaming someone with some very negative comments. (Thus the flaming liar liar pants on fire :) . Neither choice is acceptable is it?

So you obviously don't enjoy the you don't understand tactic , neither do the folks you say it too. I suspect you may see my point.

For the record,Bill why not ask me to clarrify my position before blasting it to kingdom come. Another forum member pm'd me and asked me to repost it on Vans forum as they wished to comment. I think you were the one who first started the lets move a deleted thread to another forum trend.As I recall you were asked to stand down and declined too. Kind of ***** doesn't it ?

I think my getting banned and the accusations that no one will explore is your classic straw man arguement. :lol:

I chose to jump on the grenade, guess I shouldn't cry about getting roughed up in the blast. If anyone learned anything it was probably worth it. If not I have better insight into the relationships of several on the forums.

But it's all water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned, lets stop fighting over the carcass of a dead horse.

I'm with you Bill time to move on. Hope you understand . :wink:

Postby Bill Glasheen » Tue May 03, 2005 8:28 pm

There's a whole lot going on, Laird, all the way around. Just look at all the issues that got dumped! And I'm glad they did.

There are also a lot of less-than-perfect means of expressing an idea on these forums - all the way around. But if we have to fall on a grenade every time we see it, don't you think we'll run out of blokes to die for the cause? Moderators to "tell it like they see it?" It's not like we've got a madrass or something cranking out students to do the deed. There's got to be a better way, no? Quicker, and less emotional. With "equanimity." (I know a good word when I steal it.. ;))

We still disagree on the appropriateness of using the term strawman. That's a given.

You, Rick and I need to agree to disagree. GEM and I disagree. My best friends and I disagree. (In my book, you're pretty boring if we agree on everything...) It's obvious there are still differences. Some are good at flicking the memory switch off; some are not. That's a given here. As long as that switch is in the "on" position, new stuff will happen.

Apologies never hurt. I never mean to hurt, and I am sorry when/where/if I did. (We're losing track here... :P ) And it's always good to receive them.

But there are more important dragons to slay. This we all know. Life goes on; might as well join it and enjoy.

And just because something is "officially" passed doesn't mean the ears are shut. Keep talking...

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17298
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Postby Rick Wilson » Wed May 04, 2005 4:16 am


“You, Rick and I need to agree to disagree.”

Done. 8)
Rick Wilson

Postby Stryke » Wed May 04, 2005 4:41 am

God damn it , I disagree with everyone ..... :D Agreed ? 8)

If any of you schzitheads tries to give me a hug your gonna get a shoken in the windpipe ;)

Return to Verbal Self Defense

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests