| Author |
Messages |
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:105
 |
| 09/17/2006 3:11 PM |
 Alert
|
Posted By Tora on 09-15-2006 4:21 PM
On the other hand, I've been emphasizing Destreza almost entirely since I came back from rapier camp this year, so I may have to turn in my Saviolist membership card soon. All that " lunging around corners" you know.... -William Elder William, if you have something to say you really should just try saying it--or better yet, if you have something to demonstrate, then let's get together and you can demonstrate it. Until then, do try and leave the subtlety spears on the porch, as directness is a much more honorable pursuit. Tora
I didn't mean to be obtuse here, but I don't know a way of linking directly to a page in a PDF. You're right that some folks may not have understood. My apologies for that. The jab I was making is over this section in your manual...
There are a few styles out there, The Spanish in particular, that would have you lunge indirectly at your opponent, taking an attack line that turns your body from a direct line of that of your opponent. It resembes something akin to the position you would find yourself in if you were trying to lunge around a corner. The idea, of course, is to present a threat without exposing the body.
It doesn't work.
(Tora Taka, Way of the Tiger, p.28)
Since I was discussing my interest in destreza, it seemed topical. If you have other questions or complaints, I'd suggest a new thread in the pub so as to avoid hijacking this one further.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree, no need to derail that thread any further.
I think what we have here is a difference in the definition. One of my most often used forms of attack is to plant my back foot firmly, followed usually by a large step toward my opponent and--voila!--we have a lunge. Now, to me, it would not have mattered if my front foot stepped out three feet or three inches, it would have been a lunge regardless of its size. I have even used reverse lunges on occasion though, admittedly, this goes against the common definition of a lunge: "a sudden forward thrust or pass, as with a sword".
Since they insist that what they do is so very different, perhaps for the sake of the Spanish practitioners I will revise that paragraph by exchanging the word lunge for attack. For me it's just semantics, but perhaps it will alleviate any further confusion.
Tora |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
Lessingham
Provost
Posts:121
|
| 09/18/2006 12:14 PM |
Alert
|
Actually Tora the problem with your paper in regards to Destreza systems in particular has less to do with your less than specific description of what you mean by a lunge as with your description of Destreza practioner using indirect attacks. Destreza doesn't use any such type of attack. This is actually much more descriptive of early Italina systems which attack quite often on the pass - DiGrassi and Marozzo come to mind - though I wouldn't describe their attacks as resembling attacking aorund corners.
Destreza systems use circular footwork to change their orientation to their opponent, creating a direct line to their opponents body for themselves while taking the direct line to their own body away from their opponent. Destreza does not ever use an indirect attack. Your paper shows either a basic lack of study into the spanish systems or else a basic misunderstanding of that study. Saviolo's footwork system is based on the same basic theory of geometry. Your paper also reads as somewhat insulting to the Spanish system of fence and those who study it. This is what led to your rather public issues with Puck Curtis. |
|
"The Will is the captain general of our army and our fortress."
1587 F. Ghisliero pg. 108 |
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:105
|
| 09/18/2006 4:23 PM |
Alert
|
Fair enough, your description would be different than mine, and mine still from someone else's. What I describe is, in my opinion, a weakness in the system that I am more than happy to discuss and demonstrate with any who wish to get together and do so. And so we're clear, I am not saying the Spanish style is a useless system. I incorporate some of its circular theory in both my footwork as well as my defensive swordwork. So if anything I said sounded insulting, it wasn't meant to be taken so--direct, yes, but not insulting.
As for Puck, I had no issue at all with Puck disagreeing with me. Disagreement promotes discussion, and discussion promotes demonstration, both of which can reveal the truth. It is what Puck did that I had issue with. Since that time, however, he apologized and now all is right with the world. (well, except for that whole Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch thing)
Tora |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/18/2006 4:27 PM |
Alert
|
Actually, the part that I find disturbing is the fact that you are prepared to pass judgement on a style that you clearly know next to nothing about. To wit:
From the moment I first encountered this odd technique I felt it made no sense, but in an attempt to discover some hidden merit not plainly visible on the surface I decided to explore it more fully.
(Tora Taka, The Way of the Tiger, p.28)
So far, so good. If you had followed this with, "I sought out X--an instructor who bears credentials A, B, and C, and who has been teaching this style for Y years--and studied under him for a year. Of this style, it can be said that..." Then your reader might have some cause to respect your opinion. Unfortunately, we get this, instead:
During that time I fought fighter after fighter, and each one I defeated only pointed me in the direction of yet another who was "surely capable of demonstrating it more ably" than themselves.
(ibid)
This certainly serves to promote Tora Taka, but it is worthless as an assessment of any style of fence. Based on your misunderstanding of the lunge and the assault as they apply to destreza, it is clear that you did not bother to study the system yourself. Given that, how do you know whether or not what you saw was a reasonable example of the style? They could have been Morris dancing for all you know. At best, your assessment applies to the people you fought rather than the underlying art. To judge the style secondhand is shoddy scholarship indeed, and even here we are frustrated by imprecise information. How large was your group of Spanish fencers, and with what range of experience? Without this kind of data your reader has no way of knowing if your informal sample has any significance at all.
Even here, you could have maintained some credibility had you concluded with something like, "My experience has left me with some serious reservations about the effectiveness of the Spanish style, though I am not conversant enough with the system's details to condemn it outright."
But no:
It did not matter. It was as flawed as I found it to be at first glance.
(ibid)
Jesu.
While we're on the subject, the next paragraph is devoted to heaping scorn on an unidentified period illustration:
I was amazed that anyone could actually laud this ridiculous method as credible.
I'm interested in what illustration this might be. Some period illustrations (notably in English works like Churchyard's Digrassi) are pretty heinous, but your reader will never know which one you mean, because you fail to either include the artwork itself or cite its source. Indeed, there doesn't appear to be a single source citation or footnote in the entire manual. The reader is left to conclude either that you created the art of fence from scratch, or that you are just a sloppy researcher.
Don't mistake this for criticism of your conclusions, only of your supporting scholarship. You're welcome to think that Spanish fence doesn't work, or that Fabris had no sense of balance, or that the moon landing was fake, but the moment you publicly assert that opinion as an absolute, you are responsible for supporting that assertion or looking like a fool. If you're going to write a manual, at least make the effort to write a credible one.
-William
|
|
|
|
|
Mat
Provost
Posts:123
|
| 09/19/2006 12:31 AM |
Alert
|
Flipping through the article in question, to me (the uninformed) it reads somewhat like a journal or a notebook entry.
On some levels, it reminds me somewhat of John Clements book, "Renaissance Swordsmanship."
It just needs some refining and tweaking, methinks, and a little more research. |
|
Git-r-dun! |
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:105
|
| 09/19/2006 9:08 AM |
Alert
|
I'm actually not trying to pass judgement on the entire system. In that passage I am speaking specifically to that particular technique. You also have me a little confused. I do not understand why you think it would take an entire year for me to figure out that something in a style does not work. I have been doing this for almost nineteen years and my own learning curve is decidedly quicker than that. If you yourself have an opinion that something does not work, William, exactly how many times must you defeat said technique to warrant enough proof in your mind that it does not work?
As for citing individuals' names, don't think I haven't tried. I think you will find there is a decided lack of people out there who want you to cite their name on a list of people you have successfully proven your point on. Since, as Mat correctly put it, my manual is more of a journal of my own experiences (and freely downloaded by any without me asking for a dime), which includes a macroscopic view of just some of my findings, it did not really bother me. After all, I can understand why they would feel that way. If they would prefer I not do that, then I don't. If you, however, know of someone you consider a credible source who would like to get together and demonstrate to me how I am misinformed--and would not mind me using their name afterward, regardless of whether this demonstration turns out positively or negatively for them--then by all means give me their name or have them contact me. Heck, we can even videotape it, if you like. If I am wrong we can post the whole thing unedited on this very site.
Tora
And, just to be absolutely clear for any who might be confused, I am speaking about a select piece of the Spanish style--not the style as a whole. |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/19/2006 1:42 PM |
Alert
|
Kindly take a moment to read my post above. I never suggested that you should name name the Spanish fencers you bouted. I asked that you catalog their numbers and experience.
I also asked that you cite your historical sources, like any high-school student would.
If you yourself have an opinion that something does not work, William, exactly how many times must you defeat practice said technique to warrant enough proof in your mind that it does not work?
There, fixed that for you.
If you are judging the style they profess--or aspects of that style--by the way other people perform them in bouting, then you are making your judgement dependant upon your opponents' skill levels. Therefore, in order for your reader to have any idea whether your assessment is valid, they need to know how reliable your sources were. Since you provide no information about your opponents--even in aggregate--there is no way of telling.
Even so, this is a secondhand assessment at best. You are comparing your interpretation of art A against someone else's interpretation of art B. In order to make a truely reasoned analysis, you must compare your interpretation of art A with your interpretation of art B.
Whether you study for a year, two years, six months, or a week depends on your instructor and your patience. I picked a year because I thought it the minimum time for an experienced fencer to begin internalizing the basic techniques and philosophy of a new system under a good instructor, not because I really expected you to spend that amount of time in study.
If your intent was to write a journal, then perhaps you should have written one. What you have produced is no more a journal (except perhaps the last chapter) than Brief Instructions. It does spend a lot of time in the first person, which lends an informal feel, but it proceeds topically in a way clearly designed to instruct, not chronicle. Nor does the fact that you provide The Way of the Tiger for free download somehow absolve you of some minimal level of academic responsibility.
I'm still interested in which period illustration you were so blythely maligning.
And on a final note...
If you, however, know of someone you consider a credible source who would like to get together and demonstrate to me how I am misinformed--and would not mind me using their name afterward, regardless of whether this demonstration turns out positively or negatively for them--then by all means give me their name or have them contact me.
I've been thinking of the folks I know, whom I would trust to demonstrate Spanish technique well, and you've pretty much alienated all of them, directly or indirectly, already. I'm not sure you realize just how widely your fame has spread. At this point, your reputation is second only to the great UberMaitre della Spada en Fuego himself, Bard Savat.
-William
|
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/19/2006 10:37 PM |
Alert
|
| I love North Umbrian Sidesword. |
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/19/2006 11:53 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By jgreywolf on 09-19-2006 10:37 PM
I love North Umbrian Sidesword. "From the kneeeees!" Classic.
|
|
|
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:105
|
| 09/20/2006 10:12 AM |
Alert
|
“Kindly take a moment to read my post above. I never suggested that you should name name the Spanish fencers you bouted. I asked that you catalog their numbers and experience. I also asked that you cite your historical sources, like any high-school student would.”
I actually did read your post, and it said, "I sought out X--an instructor who bears credentials A, B, and C…” Certainly sounded like you were asking me to name them. But regardless, your idea about listing only their experience is a good one, though it doesn’t prevent someone from saying that I just made these folks up. For you it might have been enough to only catalogue experience; not true of most others.
If you yourself have an opinion that something does not work, William, exactly how many times must you defeat practice said technique to warrant enough proof in your mind that it does not work?
“There, fixed that for you.”
Well, thanks for the effort there, William, but I meant what I said the first time. When I find something that works I adopt it and make it a part of me. But to adopt a technique from someone or somewhere it must be proven to work. At the very least it should make things difficult for me when put to use. Contrary to what you may think, I do not go to the first guy I meet who professes said technique and decide whether or not it works. If I did and that first guy was a rank amateur then I would only be robbing myself of a technique that could have made me a stronger swordsman. But I will find as many skilled fighters as I can who believe in this technique and use it as a part of their skill set because it is they, not me, who will best represent it.
“If you are judging the style they profess--or aspects of that style--by the way other people perform them in bouting, then you are making your judgment dependant upon your opponents' skill levels.”
Fair enough, but when does that stop being an excuse? When I have been fencing 25 years and they 20? When I reach 30 years and they 25? If I face someone who has been fencing longer than I have would that settle it entirely? To certain point what you say is true, someone with less than ten years perhaps would have a more difficult time demonstrating ably what I am trying to assess; but that is the very reason I take as wide a sampling as I do. What is more, a technique doesn’t even have to work against me for me to want to make it my own. If there is potential in something I will see it. I may not know right away exactly what needs to be tweaked or altered in order to make it effective, but I can guarantee I will find out.
“Therefore, in order for your reader to have any idea whether your assessment is valid, they need to know how reliable your sources were. Since you provide no information about your opponents--even in aggregate--there is no way of telling.”
Of course there is a way of telling: go out and find out for yourself. Before I wrote that manual/journal people were asking me for years if I had ever written anything down. So finally I had some time and did so. What they got was a macroscopic view of where I started, what I discovered, the drills I use, and even a few techniques for everyone from the beginner to the veteran. And the last thing I expect anyone to do is just take my word for it. Instead they should go out and discover for themselves exactly what I am talking about. Some will find they agree, some will find they do not. I’m fine with however it turns out for them.
“If your intent was to write a journal, then perhaps you should have written one. What you have produced is no more a journal (except perhaps the last chapter) than Brief Instructions. It does spend a lot of time in the first person, which lends an informal feel, but it proceeds topically in a way clearly designed to instruct, not chronicle. Nor does the fact that you provide The Way of the Tiger for free download somehow absolve you of some minimal level of academic responsibility.”
See above.
“I'm still interested in which period illustration you were so blythely maligning.”
I am speaking about a plate a saw with two gents in mirrored stances, leaning faaar to the back leg, sword arms fully extended toward each other. If you’ve not seen the one I am speaking of, and it is that important to you, I will dig it up and send it to you. It’s been a few years since I saw it last, but I’m sure I can find it on the internet.
“And on a final note...
I've been thinking of the folks I know, whom I would trust to demonstrate Spanish technique well, and you've pretty much alienated all of them, directly or indirectly, already. I'm not sure you realize just how widely your fame has spread. At this point, your reputation is second only to the great UberMaitre della Spada en Fuego himself, Bard Savat.”
And yet despite this fame none of these folks are willing to step forward and show me exactly how I am wrong about this technique. There are several possibilities for this, I just wonder which it is.
As for alienating them, I have been—and always will be—prepared to discuss my views and have a dance with any who disagree with me. If they don’t want to chat because my view differs, well, not much to be done for that, I’m afraid.
Tora
|
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/20/2006 10:44 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Tora on 09-20-2006 10:12 AM
And yet despite this fame none of these folks are willing to step forward and show me exactly how I am wrong about this technique. There are several possibilities for this, I just wonder which it is.
As for alienating them, I have been—and always will be—prepared to discuss my views and have a dance with any who disagree with me. If they don’t want to chat because my view differs, well, not much to be done for that, I’m afraid.
Just guessing here - but my initial instict as to why that these people are not "willing" to come forward and "face" you, is due to the fact that they feel they have nothing to prove.
As to other comments that you have made in this thread. I dont know, just a little dissapointed that you would dismiss an entire population of very good fighters, and insult them at the same time. Especially when based on a random sampling of fights that (from what I can tell) is based on a ruleset that considers the attacks that I normally see from you as valid. |
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/20/2006 12:59 PM |
Alert
|
"Kindly take a moment to read my post above. I never suggested that you should name name the Spanish fencers you bouted. I asked that you catalog their numbers and experience. I also asked that you cite your historical sources, like any high-school student would."
I actually did read your post, and it said, "I sought out X--an instructor who bears credentials A, B, and C…” Certainly sounded like you were asking me to name them. But regardless, your idea about listing only their experience is a good one, though it doesn’t prevent someone from saying that I just made these folks up. For you it might have been enough to only catalogue experience; not true of most others.
There is a distinct (and, I would have thought, clear) difference between naming a master under whom you have studied and naming folks who are, essentially, subjects of a semi-random survey. In the latter case there is a long-established academic tradition of anonymizing data...and for purposes significantly greater than avoiding wounded pride. If you think that an instructor under whom you study will have qualms about being associated with you by name, though, perhaps that should be cause for introspection.
"If you are judging the style they profess--or aspects of that style--by the way other people perform them in bouting, then you are making your judgment dependant upon your opponents' skill levels."
Fair enough, but when does that stop being an excuse?
Never. It is not an "excuse", it is simply a flawed method of evaluation.
I am speaking about a plate a saw with two gents in mirrored stances, leaning faaar to the back leg, sword arms fully extended toward each other. If you’ve not seen the one I am speaking of, and it is that important to you, I will dig it up and send it to you. It’s been a few years since I saw it last, but I’m sure I can find it on the internet.
I think posting it in this thread would be best. Soonish, if you don't mind. I'm all aquiver.
And yet despite this fame none of these folks are willing to step forward and show me exactly how I am wrong about this technique. There are several possibilities for this, I just wonder which it is.
As for alienating them, I have been—and always will be—prepared to discuss my views and have a dance with any who disagree with me. If they don’t want to chat because my view differs, well, not much to be done for that, I’m afraid.
No need to wonder. It is because your actions and writings to date have marked you as a buffoon. No one has any obligation to educate you, though I suspect--had you been willing to listen--most instructors I know would have been happy to work with you. As things stand, they simply have better things to do than teach someone who is more interested in proving that he is right than in examining the validity of that righteousness.
-William
|
|
|
|
|
Tabby
Free Scholar
Posts:37
|
| 09/20/2006 2:39 PM |
Alert
|
As vaguely entertaining as it is (not!) to watch this little wanna-be catfight, I-the-casual-reader feel the urge to say something here: William, you are being unnecessarily rude. I've met you in person, and I know that you can be a charming, reasonable fellow. However, your own behaviour is becoming buffoonish, and it's really starting to look more like you just want to pick a fight. If that's the case, quite bumbling around and get to it. I'd personally be quite happy to oblige you, if you're up to fighting a girl who picks what works for her from what she's thusfar encountered.
We'll never think the less of you for doing so, but we certainly shall if you continue this public name-calling. It smacks of elementary school bullying, and we are all (theoretically) adults here. If you just want a chance to prove you're right examine the validity of your own rightousness, Tora's not the only one who will happily give you that chance. If, on the other hand, you really do want an intelligent conversation, I suggest you hold up your end of that, because you've long since dropped that ball. If you can't get over the fact that the guy just rubs you the wrong way, well....maybe it's time to quit beating this dead horse? |
|
Lady Tabytha Morgan/Tanayle Haga
"There is no sin, except stupidity"
--Oscar Wilde |
|
|
welder
Provost
Posts:95
|
| 09/20/2006 5:21 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Tabby on 09-20-2006 2:39 PM
As vaguely entertaining as it is (not!) to watch this little wanna-be catfight, I-the-casual-reader feel the urge to say something here: William, you are being unnecessarily rude. I've met you in person, and I know that you can be a charming, reasonable fellow. However, your own behaviour is becoming buffoonish, and it's really starting to look more like you just want to pick a fight. If that's the case, quite bumbling around and get to it. I'd personally be quite happy to oblige you, if you're up to fighting a girl who picks what works for her from what she's thusfar encountered.
We'll never think the less of you for doing so, but we certainly shall if you continue this public name-calling. It smacks of elementary school bullying, and we are all (theoretically) adults here. If you just want a chance to prove you're right examine the validity of your own rightousness, Tora's not the only one who will happily give you that chance. If, on the other hand, you really do want an intelligent conversation, I suggest you hold up your end of that, because you've long since dropped that ball. If you can't get over the fact that the guy just rubs you the wrong way, well....maybe it's time to quit beating this dead horse?
I'm sorry you feel that way, Tabytha. You're right, though, that this has gone on long enough; I'm starting to say the things that I've carefully not been saying for quite some time. On the other hand, this little fight was picked long before we began this conversation.
I have no intention of fencing Tora, ever, since his past behavior at the school I attend has rendered him persona non grata. I am, however, more than happy to examine the validity of my own righteousness if you have material concerns about what I have said as opposed to how I've said it. From my remarks earlier you will remember that that phrase refers to examining a style from the inside, as opposed to simply fencing against it.
As you point out, we are all theoretically adults here. It is therefore my contention that we should be held to adult academic and social standards. While my reputation as a purist is hardly a secret, my objections in this thread have been primarily to the concrete failings of Tora's methodologies rather than to his fencing technique itself. Nor is the fact that he is regarded with scorn in the wider WMA community, largely though his own actions and writings, anything but a statement of fact. A quick search on SFI can confirm this.
However, as you say, the horse is dead. Indeed, the horse is now a thin, steaming patty of well-beaten horseburger and there is clearly little to be gained from bludgeoning it further. Let us plant a pair of coins where we suspect its eyes might have been and call it a day.
-William
|
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/21/2006 9:14 AM |
Alert
|
| Poor horsey |
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/21/2006 9:58 AM |
Alert
|
Not quite yet there William,
You don't get off that easy after the piles of manure you've been spewing.
I'm going to be careful here, but will say most of what you need to hear. You're afraid of Tora. That's the bottom line. And, you should be. You're hiding behind the safety of this forum and have the lamest excuse for never wanting to cross blades with him. And you're right. You should never cross blades with Tora. Because, from that day, you and Tora would both know, without doubt, who is the better swordsman.
I've known Tora for quite a few years, and his reputation on the field is one of honor and chivalry. He is not only respected, but revered by hundreds of fighters. Those individuals who's ego's can't handle the defeat that Tora contiuously hands them are normally the ones who spread the b.s. and do their best to make him persona non grata. It's the most ridiculously cowardly thing I've seen in the SCA. It's really sad! So why do they spread the B.S? It's their only protection. You are now hiding behind it. Not only that, you're doing your best to spread it because you don't like his opinion. As far as the WMA community goes, that b.s. got started when a couple of their members decided to make fun of our fencing group. Nor, like you, are they up for someone who asks them to prove their theory. It's the same thing. Tora's willing to back up everything he says. Are you? Are they? The problem is you're not. You hide behind texts as offhand weapons. A paper treatise is not an effective weapon.
Here's where you are really off the mark. We aren't held to academic standards here. This material is not testable, and everything I wrote in my manual, right or wrong is just that...my manual. Tora's is his. Agree or disagree, it doesn't matter. You didn't pay a dime nor are you expected to pass a test. There's a huge difference between the professional world and the world of academia. Bill Gates doesn't have to quote anybody. He says this is how it's going to be. Tom Brady, three years out of college had a Superbowl ring on his finger. He doesn't have to quote anybody. He's been to the Superbowl and won it. In the same light, in this arena, Tora doesn't have to quote anybody.
Also, we are not collegues here, nor are you my peer. The only thing that would make you my peer is if you handle a sword at a level that I respect. You show me you can hang with me with a sword in your hand, and then you will be my peer. At that point, you can ask for peer review. Not until then. I hope I'm clear on this.
If you want to agree or disagree, fine. Share your point and base it on whatever you want. No worries. But, in the professional world, the term "based on my experience" is acceptable as a source. Try to keep in mind that not all of us live in the world of academia. Lastly, try to keep in mind that many of us care much more what a person can do with the sword far and above what a person can theoritically do with a sword. Theory doesn't hold up in combat!
OK...now I've had my say...do you want to bury the horse now? My guess is you won't. So have at it.
|
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:685
|
| 09/21/2006 10:28 AM |
Alert
|
This thread is locked. I have sent warnings before to individuals insulting each other on this message board, this is the final warning in those cases.
Blayde, if you continue to assault other members of this forum with such harrassment you will be banned from the site. I am OK with people not agreeing, I am even OK with some level of "aggression" in such debates. But I will not stand for the callous and disrespectful attitude towards others (and their opinions) that you have repeatedly shown so far.
Actually - let me make myself clear, to all, on one more point. You treat everyone as your peer. |
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
|