Get a load of this guy

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi!

Just a general apologize for everyone to see, for some reason I disregarded the request to take the discussion to PM's. On the other hand there are some good things to consider in this thread for everyone, but to respect Brandon's wishes I have answered his last post privately.

Yours,
Ilkka

[Steven Blakely]

I have a really hard time excepting any real advice about wma frm any member of the sca. Many of them live under the delusion they study a martial form. THEY DO NOT. there techniques are designed for there sport. they have as much to do with wma as sport fencers do.
what buisness the members of the sca have critiquing any serious wma blows my mind.

[Sal Bertucci]

Are we seriously still talking about this? I don't think anything more can be added that would benefit this subject.

[Nathan Dexter]

In a different internet forum on a totally different subject, someone mentioned that they had done training in armor. I PM'd them to ask the organization that this person trained with. he said the SCA. That was pretty much the end of the conversation.

Also, its been maybe a year and a half since I last posted, and after reading the comments on the "School of Battle," I have noticed that some things never change. That being the fact that we are called idiots by people who refuse to accept anything. Its good to be back!

[Matt Easton]

Hi all,
I locked down that challenge because it looked hostile and bitter, rather than a gentlemanly and sensible.
I have no problem at all with hostile challenges in general, but Martial Challenge is young, and at the moment we are trying to build up a foundation of example bouts on which to interest, educate and inspire people into taking part. I did not see using Martial Challenge as a sounding board for calling people out after an internet disagreement as really being in the interests of Martial Challenge at this stage in its infancy. Apart from anything, it could have potential legal implications, should someone get injured for example.
However, I have re-opened the challenge, under the proviso that it is fought safely and in a gentlemanly manner:
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB2/vi ... hp?t=10886

Regards,
Matt

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Hi all,
I locked down that challenge because it looked hostile and bitter, rather than a gentlemanly and sensible.
I have no problem at all with hostile challenges in general, but Martial Challenge is young, and at the moment we are trying to build up a foundation of example bouts on which to interest, educate and inspire people into taking part. I did not see using Martial Challenge as a sounding board for calling people out after an internet disagreement as really being in the interests of Martial Challenge at this stage in its infancy. Apart from anything, it could have potential legal implications, should someone get injured for example.
However, I have re-opened the challenge, under the proviso that it is fought safely and in a gentlemanly manner:
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB2/vi ... hp?t=10886

Regards,
Matt

Well put, Matt. I had not considered those points. I think that Martial Challenge is an excellent idea, and I'm surprised no one thought of it sooner. In my opinion, it is an indication of a true willingness to advance the art, obtain honour, and expose charlatans all in one go.

In truth, though, re-opening it won't do any good. There's not a snowball's chance in hades that it will ever be accepted.

All the best,

-B.

[Randall Pleasant]

Matt

Thanks for pointing out other issues in running a forum that many of us rarely, if ever, consider.

[Jason Taylor]

"In your ranting and raving you argue that I can either choose to bout with you or I can be a coward, and that it has to be one or the other. This is a straw man argument in that you imply an exclusivity not inherent in the argument. I can prove this because there are other options; for example, the one I posted in reply to your challenge the first time: There’s no need to fight you because I have nothing to prove and nothing to gain."

Hmm. Isn't this actually a false dichotomy?

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Matt

Thanks for pointing out other issues in running a forum that many of us rarely, if ever, consider.

Indeed.

-B.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

"In your ranting and raving you argue that I can either choose to bout with you or I can be a coward, and that it has to be one or the other. This is a straw man argument in that you imply an exclusivity not inherent in the argument. I can prove this because there are other options; for example, the one I posted in reply to your challenge the first time: There’s no need to fight you because I have nothing to prove and nothing to gain."

Hmm. Isn't this actually a false dichotomy?

Why, I do believe it is!

Good one.

-B.