Sensei Canna offers insight into the real world of self defense!

Moderator: Van Canna

Postby Dana Sheets » Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:17 pm

I don't see why the thread would have to be deleted, I do question why it wouldn't be better to let Van and Bill sort out this disagreement on their own? They're both big boys and Van is more than capable of defending himself without anyone picking up his torch.

I admire the loyalty he attracts - loyalty is important and showing loyalty is important. It's obvious that Van's efforts have helped him develop deep and meaningful relationships.

But I don't understand why some of these responses seem to be emotionally highjacked when Van seems to still be cool as a cucumber. 8)

I've been on the forums for a good while (lurked for a long time before I posted) and I'm constantly intrigued by the level of emotion that comes up.

I've been to several martial arts forums on the web and this is one of the few where most of the posters are over 18 years old and most of the discussion is something that helps folks understand different ways to train and improve whatever they're working on.

I love these forums, I've dedicated hours and hours of time to it - as have most of the people on this thread - but I don't like these forums when it seems like discussion has ended and name calling ensues.
Did you show compassion today?
User avatar
Dana Sheets
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am

Postby Stryke » Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:29 pm

Good post Dana , I tend to agree

For the record i`m not highjacked , I find it all rather amusing and sad .

I think folks get highjacked becuase of the double standards that have occured .

while small things have received deletions and censuring and are removed from veiw .

then we have folks that continue as they feel fit , they edit history to make everything look rosey , and set others up as to look otherwise .

So you then see the harvesting of whats sown , rather messy and unfortunate yes , and it contributes to more of the same , and those who care passionately about there friends , and are by tradition not bootlickers and having the power to edit ... well

some folks get tarnished by not appearing as they should , the folks not around enough dont see it , they shake there heads and sigh or judge .

But the few smart enough to read between the lines start to learn , and improve , and see the facts , without the fear , protectionisim , and ego .

They realise some folks arent out to sell anything and are contributing to help . And share a passion .

and yes I wonder if it`s worth it , I`ve considered calling it quits on the forums becuase it seems so hopeless to be where your not wanted .

But freinds like Van , Laird , Rick , and the thinking posters see to the matter . And it can be a place of learning .

But to much it`s a place of rhetoric and mythology and worse editing .

But of course it`s just my martial fantasy .

Postby Stryke » Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:36 pm

And for the record

Bills acknowledged I`m allowed to call him Schzithead :lol:

Imply Infer

Postby Dana Sheets » Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:40 pm


v 1: express or state indirectly [syn: connote] 2: suggest as a logically necessary consequence; in logic 3: have as a logical consequence; "The water shortage means that we have to stop taking long showers" [syn: entail, mean] 4: suggest that someone is guilty [syn: incriminate, inculpate] 5: have as a necessary feature or consequence; entail; "This decision involves many changes" [syn: involve]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

v. intr.

To draw inferences.

[Latin nferre, to bring in, adduce : in-, in; see in-2 + ferre, to bear; see bher-1 in Indo-European Roots.]in·fera·ble adj.
in·fera·bly adv.
in·ferrer n.

below is the important bit for these forums...
Usage Note: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions.

I find reading between the lines of conversational text written on these forums to be...inconclusive...without gestures, intonation, body language, pacing, eyes, posture, facial expressions...conversational text is really really limited in getting across meaning clearly. There's just tons of room for interpretation. This is the main reason why I like to start with questions when I'm not sure where someone else is coming from.

I had a science teacher in 7th grade who used to mis-use the above terms. He used to always say "did you get the inference?" What he should have been saying is "did you infer my implications?" Inference, or "reading between the lines" is something I find to be extremely difficult to do accurately with conversational texts on the web.
Did you show compassion today?
User avatar
Dana Sheets
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am

Postby Dana Sheets » Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:51 pm

I've been paying attention. I've seen you and Bill exchanging or sort of not exchanging posts for a good while.

But I've found it to be useful to not write to trends or the past or whatever. I've found the best way to deal with issues is one at a time and clear them up one at a time. The argument of "you do this all the time" is a more difficult discussion than one of a particular sentence that is perceived to be condescending.

I know that in the past you're often pointed out posts to Bill you've found to be that way and Bill has often responded in a way that's unsatisfactory to you. So, to me, it's clear that for whatever reason you two are often seeing things from very different points of view.

And for the record, I'm not IUKF and never have been. I'm in Okikukai.

....time for beer and BBQ and live music!!! CYA!
Did you show compassion today?
User avatar
Dana Sheets
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am

Postby Rick Wilson » Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:26 am

Oh, I think when friends are insulted then everyone jumps in. :D

Everyone does it either by posting or PM or emails but they do it. I see little problem with this kind of loyalty.

It is exactly like the emails I received recently when I took offence to something Bill posted on my forum. Friends just trying to back up friends. I took no offence to them and certainly Bill and I are big boys too, so why the emails if big boys are supposed to work it out themselves? Again I took no offence to the emails, just friends backing up friends. :D

The bottom-line is that stating an argument is a strawman argument is an attack on the presenter of the argument and a ploy to discredit the person. :evil:

I do not think this is hidden between the lines. I think intelligent people know what they post or when called on it they clarify in a hurry. 8O

Read the implications of the accusation of the strawman argument again:

When you call something a strawman argument then you are attacking the presenter of that argument. :oops:

This is clear is it not?

“Possibly you just don’t understand what you are implying by calling Van a straw man.”

Bill was given the opportunity to acknowledge his error but instead he singled out one line and let the implications, and therefore the insult stand.

“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.” :evil:

Bill read what the strawman implied and stood by his claim – fair enough, but then he also has to listen to what people think of his attempt to discredit and attack Van’s honour.
Rick Wilson

Postby jorvik » Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:50 am

Well I think that you takes folks as you find them.I really enjoy Bill's comments, sometimes they are said very tongue in cheek and folks really don't get the joke ( I sympathise becasue I've done this a lot myself :roll: ) and sometimes they are very thorough and precise, especially when said about medicine or science. The one directed at Van,I personally think was taken out of all proportion and was used as a sniping attack done against things that Bill has said in the past ....I think that Bill was really trying to get a responce from Van and develop a thread.the comment about "Experts" I totally agree with..I've even asked for clarification of what an "Expert" is........and as a sidenote I consider both Bill and Van to be experts 8)...none of us are perfect on the forums, we all make Gaffs...I more than most :oops: :oops: ...but it's all part of the fun.
If you can get highjacked like this in Cyberspace imagine what can happen on mean street :roll:
Dana....I really like your stance ( bit like mom telling the bad boys to behave......or they won't get their tea :lol: :lol: :lol: ).but really sometimes women are a lot more sensible than men :wink:

Postby benzocaine » Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:46 am

(deleted part about guys challenging GEM to ban them)

I respect both Bill and Van. From what I've read over the past couple of years Bill has expressed lots of admiration for Van. I think an intentional insult is beneath him.

One good thing about this thread. Many now know what a strawman is.
Last edited by benzocaine on Sun May 01, 2005 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 2107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Location: St. Thomas


Postby Mills75 » Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:09 am

both guys are great guys in my mind they seem pretty cool to me.we shouldn't pour lighter fluid on a situation between two friends it's all very silly..I'm sure Bill would not intentionally insult Van and vice's really silly...

User avatar
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 7:03 am

Postby Stryke » Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:43 am

I win the bet !!!!

Postby JimHawkins » Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:22 am

It's not all about Bill and Van, though many folks don't care to see Van labeled this way, again and again, taking it on the chin.

It's mainly about Bill using the 'straw man' label to dismiss valid arguments time and time again. Van is not the only person to fall victim to the 'straw man' accusation, I know I've been the straw man once or twice myself. Moreover, I don't think anyone addressing this has been hijacked here, it's just a question of fair and balanced debating...or the lack thereof.
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
User avatar
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Postby Dana Sheets » Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:35 am

Rick - I see a huge difference between one on one emails or phone calls and posting in a public forum or shouting something in the public square.

The pressure of knowing the world can read or hear what you write/say puts added pressure on indvidiuals and those loyal to them. In private emails I've been able to clear up a number of confusions over the years (either for myself or between posters) without adding to that confusion by talking it out on the forum. However it seems like a group of people don't understand each other it's usually been best to ask questions in the open forum instead of off-line. Things get figured out, folks post to clarify their position, and everyone can walk away with a clearer understanding. I'm writing on this thread to try to better understand why this particular issue is repeatly popping up without getting resolved.

I've been on the other end of being dismissed in more than one conversation on these forums more than once by a variety of people.

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."

I'm willing to wait until there's another opportunity for dialogue to try again.

Even on this thread you can see how implication and inference can be far apart. I wrote thinking that the kinds of posts that were up were written by folks who were emotionally highjacked. Those folks have written back to say "no - we weren't, we're kind of laughing about all this and we're trying to make a point." So I was wrong. But with a couple of posts - I was able to clear up the issue and it turned out that I was reading between the lines incorrectly.

Do we all have to get along? Nope. Do we all have to like each other? Nope. Do I want this to be a welcoming community where new people post and are willing to ask their questions without fear? Yep.

I've talked with many many people who lurk and don't post. One of the main reasons they give for not posting is the fear of not being understood and having a group pile on and criticize them. It is my personal belief that these discussions should happen with the same level of politeness and respect you'd have face to face. That's why my face is my icon. When I post - I'm saying it. When people respond, they're writing to me.

So that's where I'm coming from when I put on my moderator cap and email folks off-line or post on-line.
Did you show compassion today?
User avatar
Dana Sheets
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am

Postby Stryke » Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:26 pm


You just dont understand

when youve been around as long as I have

etc etc

theres nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree , It`s the condesending tone , and personal attack of these kind of statement that frustrates .

And when it`s mentioned it`s not redressed , it`s a case of I`m right , I dont care .

For the record I have posted nothing that I wouldnt say face to face , But the fact is I probably wouldnt have too .

I` be surprised if the other remarks would be made to me in person .

The subtle way is`nt available , some folks havw never responded to a PM Ive ever sent them .

when a question is posted on his forum about the tactics it is deleted .

when the only recourse is a more public one , others look like they are just out to attack . Others come in and get there licks , kinda like the pot calling the kettle black .

I`m sure this post will probably be deleted , as will anything that makes this thread any sense .

And perhaps I`ll be banned as well .

Postby Stryke » Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:54 pm

James Allen

Thought & Character
The aphorism, "As a man thinketh in his heart so is he," not only embraces the whole of a man's being, but is so comprehensive as to reach out to every condition and circumstance of his life. A man is literally what he thinks, his character being the complete sum of all his thoughts.
As the plant springs from, and could not be without, the seed, so every act of a man springs from the hidden seeds of thought, and could not have appeared without them. This applies equally to those acts called "spontaneous" and "unpremeditated" as to those which are deliberately executed.

Act is the blossom of thought, and joy and suffering are its fruits; thus does a man garner in the sweet and bitter fruitage of his own husbandry.

Thought in the mind hath made us. What we are
By thought we wrought and built. If a man's mind
Hath evil thoughts, pain comes on him as comes
The wheel the ox behind . . . If one endure in purity
of thought joy follows him as his own shadow - sure.
Man is a growth by law, and not a creation by artifice, and cause and effect is as absolute and undeviating in the hidden realm of thought as in the world of visible and material things. A noble and Godlike character is not a thing of favor or chance, but is the natural result of continued effort in right thinking, the effect of long-cherished association with Godlike thoughts. An ignoble and bestial character, by the same process, is the result of the continued harboring of groveling thoughts.

Man is made or unmade by himself; in the armory of thought he forges the weapons by which he destroys himself. He also fashions the tools with which he builds for himself heavenly mansions of joy and strength and peace. By the right choice and true application of thought, man ascends to the Divine Perfection; by the abuse and wrong application of thought, he descends below the level of the beast. Between these two extremes are all the grades of character, and man is their maker and master.

Postby jorvik » Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:02 pm

(PM sent by the way).......I have to say when I don't feel wellcome on a forum I go to another.............just me I guess. You are on Van's forum now.
I don't think anyone can delete your opinions here apart from Van.
I was banned from Panther's forum some time problem, his loss as far as I'm concerned :lol: :lol: so I don't/can't post there ( I've never tried since I was banned so I don't know).
Same with this.........I tend to jump around a bit myself between forums..each caters for a different aspect of MA's and one topic might go down well in one forum and badly in another. as an example I would make a post about my favourite tactical knife on Van's but not on Bill's and similarly I would discuss diet on Bill's but not Van's......if however I didn't feel wellcome on either then I woulldn't post.
Generally I see you and Laird favouring Either Van's forum ( nitty gritty self defence) or Rick's ( Kata and principles and some spiritual aspects of why we do what we do) own personal take I've had issues with Bill
about the useless president ( Joke :lol: ) etc.
however, I have to say if you don't like the treatment you move on, if you are not happy with Bill it seems a bit silly to not post on Van's forum :?
don't drop a stone on your own foot :wink:


Return to Van Canna's Self Defense Realities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 guests