223981 Bullies, 4246 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 2,241 to 2,250 of 2987
Page 225 of 299 FirstFirst ... 125175215221222223224225 226227228229235275 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    12/04/2012 8:33pm

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Phillips View Post
    Really? Fake style? Really? You honestly think I WANT people believing I train in something called "No jiu-jitsu at all" so that I can seem the bad ass?
    Who ever mentioned bad-assery? That term never comes up when the discussion turns to you, I guarantee.

    And no, as has already been pointed out, a) you're not training "no jiu-jitsu at all" (that doesn't mean anything) and b) your field doesn't actually say that in English.

    Are you deceiving random people that you are training in something distinct from Tai Chi Chuan by using the less publicly known of the two romanizations? LOLOL
    Nope. By definition no, since I actually do train taijiquan. The field is for what you are training, not for what you are not training. Remember? This will come up again in a minute!

    And you just KNOW this. You're paranoid beyond words dude.
    Know what? Know that you know that your style field is not limited to this thread and the various explanations embedded in it? Yes I do know that. Everyone does.

    Know that people can Google up threads other than this one and see your style field? Yes I do know that. Everyone does.

    Know that people can be misled? Yes I do know that. Everyone does.

    Know that you chose these fields to produce a bit of frisson? Yes. Remember this:

    Well, it's two things: it's a parody of "Nage No Kata" which is on of ... way of saying I suck (No Katanas at NAGA in the immediate future). Really I haven't been training and I don't have anything besides a pun in my style field.

    The joy of a pun is based on frisson—the thrill created by understanding/misunderstanding. The pun only works if misunderstanding is cultivated along with understanding.

    Finally, you've already acknowledged you don't believe that your field represents your training (you were doing it to annoy me, and plus you started training last week)—thus, hypocrite.

    Every person with half a brain reading this thread knows that interpretation is about as likely as you showing up at the next Mega
    There's no interpretation: you insist that people put what they are currently training accurately in their style field and indeed make it a moral litmus test central to the existence of this site (remember your quiz of the three founders?), and then you put puns and nonsense in your own style field. Who exactly is agreeing with you that this somehow isn't hypocrisy, btw?

    What is it you like to say? Oh yeah, quote or STFU.

    It better be.
    Sorry, chubs. If Bullshido has as part of its mission education, there's no way that one can claim that someone has to already be familiar with NAGA before they can even look at this site or your field. Note: not post, not be a member, just plain ol' look. Supposedly, Bullshido "works" because of the Google ranks of the threads, so clearly we want people not familiar with the site to find it with their google searches on various terms, like, say, "katana."

    And I filled it out correctly in a recognized Human language spoken by hundreds of millions of people.
    Nope, not correctly at all. Even leaving aside the issue of punnery, there is no such style and no such training as "incapable of earning a katana at NAGA" nor is there any such style or any such training as "no jiu-jitsu at all." The field is for what you train, not your state of achievement, or for what you do not train.


    Really? "Our?" Who the **** do you think you are?
    Speaking of sloppy—that "our" was from Chuck Wepner, not me. Idiot.

    Specify who was attacked for not being current, and provide a quote or STFU
    Here's you, to ChenPengFi, after telling him that he shouldn't put his gongfu in his style field because he only used to train it, and now trains BJJ

    YES, because this is the serious kind of fucking up the style field, and not the dance where you put in something you're not currently training.

    So, CPF is doing a "dance" with his style field despite having a fair amount of useful experience in gongfu that he shares on the CMA board on this site, while your style field shenanigans are magically cool because a mod hadn't told you to change it yet. You then hustled to get clearance and called me a ******.

    PS: nothing is more hilarious than you telling people to STFU. Or what? You'll fall to your knees in front of them and tap out?

    PPS: yes yes, I know, you'll whine that saying that someone else is dancing is not an attack, and indeed it is a mild one—we know you're not capable of anything more than that—but the fact is that CPF has a good reason for his field and uses it to help this site, and you have your shitty field only because you have a lot of ego-needs not being met elsewhere in your life. Oh boy, a thread about you! On the Internet! Yeah!


    It must be awesome being so fucking smart.
    It is.
      #2241
  2. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    12/04/2012 8:44pm

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Phillips View Post
    As I have said before, this site was set up to protect my right to be a douche. Not yours. Mine.
    Yes yes, we all know that you're a douche.


    Specifically that it was set up with the idea of eliminating censorship that was applied specifically to me someplace else. ICY, PeeDee, JKD and Phrost stood up for me once, and they have my loyalty. As does this place.
    Yes yes, I know you have ego-needs not being met elsewhere in your life.

    "Positioned" when exactly? He didn't say he started it post-TD until waay after I called his vid "lousy"
    You continued to hammer away at "600 hours" after you were corrected about the timing of his training.

    I never said a fucking thing about "600 hours" regarding Zendokan at all. You're mistaken. Quote me or shut the **** up. You can keep putting words in my mouth all night, but it won't stick.
    Again with the stfus. What are you going to do if I don't quote you? Whine to an admin? Also, when have I never not quoted you?


    Dude, I commented that his skills looked "pretty terrible" for someone training 600 hours a year


    That's one.

    1) What does my fight have to do with Rene's training?
    Simple: you lacked the training experience to come to the conclusions you did about Rene.

    2) I made an apology in public to Zendo
    Quote it, with link.

    3) Kin chose to walk out to the center of the ring and call me a "Douche" after the fight was over
    So? As you acknowledge, you are a douche.

    I walked out to the exact same spot and asked him WTF he was going on about.
    Right. Not gracious.

    He chose to walk out to center stage and be insulting when neither me, nor anyone from my corner was saying a word to him.
    So? After all, you are a douche. It's hardly an insult if you acknowledge it to be so. Even if you were insulted, your claim is that you're gracious and move on. You are not and you do not. Kin's behavior is besides the point.

    3) I just skimmed ChuckWepner's reply, and I very well might have an apology for him as well. We'll see.
    Oh, you will. I recommend it begin "I'm sorry for my schoolboy error..."
    Last edited by Rivington; 12/04/2012 8:47pm at .
      #2242
  3. battlefields is offline
    battlefields's Avatar

    Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Australia, Land of Oz
    Posts
    5,222

    Posted On:
    12/04/2012 8:55pm

    forum leader
     Style: BJJ/ MMA/ MT

    5
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Matt, I'm not piling on, but I agree your style field saying NAGA NO KATANA or nao ha jiu jitsu is not in keeping with what you purport to be your stance in this site. If you aren't training, say you're not training by putting "not training at the moment". By putting nao ha jiu jitsu you are saying you are training in something to noobs who may not know better, who may think it is some top secret malarkey, that you are the recipient of teh deadly. I remember when I came on here and say a variety of martial arts in style fields that I had never heard of, many with Asian sounding names. WTF is Xingyi? I assume it is a Chinese Kung Fu, because it has a Xing and a yi in it, which possibly makes me racist but more likely just ignorant. So your nao ha jiu jitsu, despite being hilarious to you because you know that it means no jiu jitsu, well ****, I don't know Portuguese, you could be learning a Brazilian family style based from Vale Tudo that took Jiu Jitsu in the name because of the marketing potential.

    Many of us get it, lol, haha, yeah, there is no katanas at NAGA, good one, what a great pun, and nao ha jiu jitsu (with the accents), man, that's awesome that you know Portuguese, wish I had that kind of wordplay ability. But seriously, the way you were talking about the sanctity of the style field, well, you're being disingenuous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Machette View Post
    Ups to Battlefields for dropping the sage wisdom.

    You are like a Pimp Yoda.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquil Suit View Post
    Battlefields... You're more of a man than I am.
    GET A RED BELT OR DIE TRYIN'.
      #2243
  4. Omega Supreme is offline

    Administrator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    22,973

    Posted On:
    12/04/2012 9:06pm

    staff
     Style: Chinese Boxing

    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckWepner View Post
    There is actually a point, but believe me I am very aware that it is buried deep in the jargon. And I readily admit that there is a ton of stuff that goes on in academic circles, including in philosophy departments that is bullshit.
    You know I'm just messing with your right? I'm trying to remember where I got that from but the paraphrased quote went

    "I am a philosopher"

    "Ah, a bullshitter".
      #2244
  5. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,955

    Posted On:
    12/04/2012 9:22pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    5
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Supreme View Post
    You know I'm just messing with your right? I'm trying to remember where I got that from but the paraphrased quote went

    "I am a philosopher"

    "Ah, a bullshitter".
    Mel Brooks, History of the world Part 1..
      #2245
  6. Omega Supreme is offline

    Administrator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    22,973

    Posted On:
    12/04/2012 9:25pm

    staff
     Style: Chinese Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Mel Brooks, History of the world Part 1..
    That was it.
      #2246
  7. Matt Phillips is online now
    Matt Phillips's Avatar

    NOTE TO SELF - MOAR GRAPPLE - GET A NORMAL HAIR CUT - REPEAT

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bahstun
    Posts
    9,650

    Posted On:
    12/04/2012 9:58pm

    supporting member
     Style: Submission Grappling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckWepner View Post
    Matt, no. This isn't PhD-level stuff. And to be honest, it is clear that you are quite a bright guy who does know some serious philosophy. I would be happy to say that this is an issue of theoretical self-refutation if it were, but it isn't.

    You are not saying "Posts by non-trainers are false." or "Posts by non-trainers lack truth-value."

    Matt Post #123 is a Command. A *moral* injunction, not a proposition about the truth-functionality of posts.

    You are saying "It is wrong for non-trainers to post" or "Non-trainers shouldn't post." So, the conflict isn't about truth, it's not some logical paradox. It's that you are saying it is wrong to do something and then doing it. And that is what it is to be a fucking hypocrite. Nothing philosophically fancy about it. No paradox of meaning. Just a guy telling people that something shouldn't be done and that he doesn't do it over and over while he does it over and over.
    Let me start by separating the technical issue (ie: am I correct in describing a certain thing I have done as self-refuting, from the debate over you're contention that this thing I have done is indicative of hypocrisy.

    To the latter: do you find it hypocritical if I yell "EVERYBODY STOP TALKING", or if I fight a "war to end all wars", or, upon hearing a certain Cartesian argument happen to suppose for, say, 24 hours that I do not Exist? Whatever the final result of our conversation about the technical definition of self-refutation is, all of the above share the same property as my decision to post about my opinion that I should not post on the site while I am not training. Are the examples above really what you mean by "hypocrisy", and are they really in a separate category from what I have said and done that prompts you to name me as such? If so, please explain.

    More to the point, I said that I should not post actively. Me. Actively. Granted, my activity on this thread is in violation of "NOT ACTIVELY", but you contend that I have attempted to apply this to others, yet refuse to provide evidence that I ever said such a thing, or prove that I ever contended that I had knowledge that any other person was not training. It is a simple matter to go back and find the offending material, is it not?

    To the former: quoting from Self-refutation--a formal analysis, J. L. Mackie' Philosophical Quarterly 14 (56):193-203 (1964)
    We have pragmatic self-refutation when the way in which something is presented conflicts with what is presented. For example, if I say I am not saying anything, what I say is false; it is falsified by the very way in which I put it forward. Similarly, if I write that I am not writing, what I write must be false.
    Note that neither of Mackie's examples involve propositions spoken or written that deal with any concept of truth (or falsity), but are merely false by consequence of (pragmatic) self-refutation. Now, what is the substantive difference between writing "I am not writing" and writing "I should not be writing" Is it your point that the latter is expressing a point of preference, and not making a claim regarding a fact of the world? This is an extremely fine point to be making anything other than a clarifying comment about.

    If I had posted "Non-trainers like me do not post" instead of "Non-trainers like me should not post" then we would not be having this discussion, and I would have been correct in applying the term "self-refuting" to my prior posting.

    Do you think anyone here was tuned in enough to the fine point of this distinction to be affected in any way by my misapplying "self-refuting" in a way that is undetectable by anyone who is not a professional philosopher? Because you have called me a hypocrite and accused me of acting unfairly to others on the basis of this very fine epistemic point.

    If I write "Someone posts about all posters that do not post about themselves" on this forum (I just did), will you say merely that paradox is in play, but malign me if I attempt to express a belief that no one should post so?

    What you have done is extremely hairy and unfair, and it's resting on your appeal to your own credentials and other posters lack of interest in following technical points in philosophy. I doubt more than one or two people following this care to understand the distinction you have made, and I am sure that they are not among the posters "agreeing" with you on this.

    Fortunately there are people outside your profession who are quite capable and interested enough to follow what you are saying, and to see the problem with how you tried to use it.
    Last edited by Matt Phillips; 12/04/2012 10:11pm at .
    Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


    KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

    In De Janerio, in blackest night,
    Luta Livre flees the fight,
    Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
    Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!
      #2247
  8. ChuckWepner is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chicago / Michigan
    Posts
    391

    Posted On:
    12/04/2012 10:01pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Supreme View Post
    You know I'm just messing with your right? I'm trying to remember where I got that from but the paraphrased quote went

    "I am a philosopher"

    "Ah, a bullshitter".
    Yep. We are fine. No gong sau / suicide attempt being issued here.
      #2248
  9. battlefields is offline
    battlefields's Avatar

    Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Australia, Land of Oz
    Posts
    5,222

    Posted On:
    12/04/2012 10:07pm

    forum leader
     Style: BJJ/ MMA/ MT

    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    **** semantics. Shut up and train.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Machette View Post
    Ups to Battlefields for dropping the sage wisdom.

    You are like a Pimp Yoda.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquil Suit View Post
    Battlefields... You're more of a man than I am.
    GET A RED BELT OR DIE TRYIN'.
      #2249
  10. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,955

    Posted On:
    12/04/2012 10:09pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by battlefields View Post
    Damn semantics; shut up and train.
    Fixed. Semantics is what makes half the people on this board train and the other 99% not admit they suck.
      #2250

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.