The ARMA and everyone else.

[Johannes Flieger]

[snip]

Along this thread can be found enough inconsistencies and unsatisfactory explanations from behalf of Mr. McDonald, when compared to the oficial information released trough his own webpages, to point out that there is a serious misleading of the public, and that Mr. McDonald is lying about certain matters.
And it's clear that even I am the only one that actually calls him liar, here is a lot of other people that at the very least have their own serious doubts about Mr. McDonald.... and he has done nothing to take the the fog apart.

So, may I take this as confirmation that you do not have any other evidence, other than the present thread and the threads you cite from the AEEA forum?

It is shameful that other people, like yourself, have to stand HIS ground in these matters.

Mr. Uribe, I represent no-one other than myself here, and I have declared the reason for my interest. I am not standing in for Mr. Macdonald. After all, if I've been defrauded, I want my money back!

If that is enough to prove him guilty of profesional fraud in a court, I leave it to lawyers and judges. Law is not my strong point.
On the other hand If you want to consider it difamatory slander is up to you.

Well, I simply want to clarify what you're basing your accusation on. Given the conviction with which you stated it, I assumed you had some other source of information regarding an act of fraud perpetrated by Messrs. Martinez and Macodonald.

To me there is enough information to consider him a liar.
As I formed my own opinion each one is free to make their own minds about this. The facts are out there, the words of the people invloved are out there. Is up to each one to decide what to think on the matter.
Simply put, I think he's beeen lying.

Well, fair enough. However, it is not my intention to persuade you otherwise. What I am trying to establish is whether there is any reason *I* (or anybody else) should believe you.

--Johannes

[Johannes Flieger]

Mr. Uribe,

The spanish students of Mr. Sinclair rose their voices about Mr. Loriega.
They were ignored and dismissed.
It it explained in the AEEA forum.

Now, In this same thread Mr. McDonald says he did some inquiries and discarded the matter as of no importance.

I am rereading the threads you pointed me to, but so far I haven't come across one where it says that they were "ignored and dismissed". Do you know roughly where it appears in the thread?

I have still not found any mention of Mr. Macdonald. I have come across several mentions of Messrs. Martinez and Sinclair, but all of them are extremely positive, praising their competence, professionalism, and dedication. These are the judgements of the very same people you recommended as witnesses to the fraudulent behaviour of Messrs. Martinez and Sinclair, yet they seem to be asserting the opposite. Are you are asking us to trust their judgement regarding the fraud committed by Loriega, yet at the same time ignore the very high esteem in which they hold the other masters of IMAF (in particular, Martinez and Sinclair)? If so, on what grounds?

Also, do you know in what manner the issue was raised?

--Johannes

[Francisco Uribe]

What I am trying to establish is whether there is any reason *I* (or anybody else) should believe you.

--Johannes

I figured out that much.

It is obvious that everyone is sticking to to his own guns.

However I would highly recomend to read over what has been stated in the thread by Mr. McDonald, to note the different colors that his points have taken, and then compare it against the info in his own webpages (either McDonal Academy, IMAF or elsewhere.

If you are really interested we can discuss this further on e-mail. I do not have any problems to continue in a different environment, it's just that is obvious that we are not getting anywhere with this thread.

But I wonder... do you want your money back because he told you that he was the last reciepient of a living lineage? or for some other reason?
In any case if he affirmed certain things to you, of which you're not sure anymore, you should ask him to give you definitive prove.

[Johannes Flieger]

What I am trying to establish is whether there is any reason *I* (or anybody else) should believe you.

--Johannes

I figured out that much.

It is obvious that everyone is sticking to to his own guns.

However I would highly recomend to read over what has been stated in the thread by Mr. McDonald, to note the different colors that his points have taken, and then compare it against the info in his own webpages (either McDonal Academy, IMAF or elsewhere.

If you are really interested we can discuss this further on e-mail. I do not have any problems to continue in a different environment, it's just that is obvious that we are not getting anywhere with this thread.

But I wonder... do you want your money back because he told you that he was the last reciepient of a living lineage? or for some other reason?
In any case if he affirmed certain things to you, of which you're not sure anymore, you should ask him to give you definitive prove.

No, what I meant was, *if* he were a fraud, then I along with all his other students and clients, would be victims of fraud, in which case we would naturally be wanting or money back

In my personal dealings with Mr. Macdonald, he has never given me cause to doubt his word or integrity--in fact, quite the opposite. He has never made dubious lineage claims for himself, and as far as I know has generally behaved in exemplary fashion.

While you are entitled to your doubts, I think that the basis on which you make such sweeping allegations of fraud are extremely flimsy. Doubting someone's qualifications is one thing, but once you make accusations of fraud in public, this places you under a certain burden of proof, which to my mind you have singularly failed to meet. It has to be something better than reading some webpages and forum threads on the matter--especially when, in the case of the AEEA threads, your own chosen witnesses speak highly of the people you accuse!

I agree that this is no longer a profitable venue for discussion.

--Johannes

[Francisco Uribe]

especially when, in the case of the AEEA threads, your own chosen witnesses speak highly of the people you accuse!
--Johannes

And even though they still testify about Loriega's saying there is no school and they haven't found the school themselves.

Interesting how you separate matters... hmmmn.

I know the spanish thread, I parcitipated in it. I will not bother translating the whole thing here, just to show how you are missing the important bits. Like it would matter, since each one pays attention to what considers relevant. Ans thus we we'll continue circling.

Now, now why is that people just cannot come directly and say what they think, but hide under false courtesies? Treating these subjects would be so much easier.

Thre are 2 separate issues in thi thread one is Mr. Macdonald's credentials as master and the other is his involment with Loriega trough the IMAF.
I invited you to form your own opinion about the facts out there, glad you have done so, even if this means you think poorly of me or my sayings.
I'm so sure of what I say that I'm willing to let my name be muddled because of it.

Now regarding burden of proof...
Why should be I provinding evidence to disprove something that evidence has never been presented for?
For that I mean Mr. McDonald's credentials (which he contradicts himself in this same thread) or Mr. Lorieg'as fictional school?
They are the ones to provide extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims.
Otherwise, as you say I have the right to call them out as liars.
As you have the right to believe what ever they tel you and think lowly of me for not wanting to simply chime the bells in.
You got it all backwards... it is we who require their proofs.

[Stephen Kilbane]

I know the spanish thread, I parcitipated in it. I will not bother translating the whole thing here, just to show how you are missing the important bits.

Hmm.

"I say OK, what proof do you have of it?
I'm still waiting for you to show it. All you do is pretend offense and whine about my question. "

You said this earlier in the thread, directed at Macdonald, as well as numerous variations on the theme - including after the relevant information was quoted on this thread pages earlier. The information had to be presented to you again before you'd move on (to the next set of questions, which is okay).

So, it's unfair to insist that others extract and present precisely the information you want, while not doing others the same courtesy.

Now, now why is that people just cannot come directly and say what they think, but hide under false courtesies? Treating these subjects would be so much easier.

I don't know about you, but I try to be polite. When attacked, most people go on the defensive (or attack back), and in conversation, I find that counter-productive. Especially since, often, it's merely a misunderstanding. For example, back on 2nd June, Nathan Dexter wrote:

"The International Masters at Arms Federation is an organization of professional teachers of Western Armed Arts. It is mostly focused on Historical and Classical fencing, that is to say, fencing of the 14th through the 19th centuries, based on surviving traditions and historical documentation." This clearly states that the IMAF claims this lineage.

The implication being that IMAF claimed lineage back to the 14th century. That's not the most natural way of reading that text, as far as I can see:
- IMAF's focused on fencing from 14th -- 19th C.
- and it does this through surviving traditions (that'd be 19th C) and historical documentation (earlier)

Why should be I provinding evidence to disprove something that evidence has never been presented for?

That's not what's being asked. Johannes was asking for evidence that Macdonald is commiting fraud. Not that he holds opinions with which you disagree, but that he's stated facts for which you can present contradictory evidence.

For that I mean Mr. McDonald's credentials (which he contradicts himself in this same thread)

Really? Where? I've been looking back through this, and I haven't seen it (admittedly, it's a damn big thread, and it took me quite a while to track down Nathan's quote, and I knew it was there somewhere.) Macdonald's been vague, I grant you, and there's been miscommunication, but that's not the same thing.

Otherwise, as you say I have the right to call them out as liars.

You've always got that right. Doesn't make it true.

As you have the right to believe what ever they tel you and think lowly of me for not wanting to simply chime the bells in.
You got it all backwards... it is we who require their proofs.

I don't think lowly of you for that at all. As I said in my post on Tuesday, I can quite understand your feelings on the matter, and your insistence on trying to clarify the details of Macdonald's certification. Precise questions were asked, and imprecise answers came back. No foul there. I think the antagonistic tone's unnecessary, though, and the (apparent) sudden appearance of a double-stand is disappointing.

steve

[Francisco Uribe]

and the (apparent) sudden appearance of a double-stand is disappointing.
steve

My dear Stephen go, trough the thread and you'll see how Mr. McDonald argues in favor of the continuity of linages in fencing, using other europeans arts.
He also said that the was acknowleged as a Fisas Master, to then later say that he was aknowlegded by Sinclair and that he actually never took any sort of formal examination for his title.
Interestingly there are webpages on the McDonald academy stating that he became a master after 4 years of study, Then he goes fund the IMAF and which requires 7 years, plus a written and verbal examination? On what grounds can he require that from other people?
Grants the title of master in navaja to Loriega, though himself do not know anything on the weapon itself? (navajas are not swords, by the way)
And when told that Loriega's is just a mere invention he dismisses the case in less than 24 hours, calling me nosy ... even though the navaja school cannot be found anywhere in Sevilla?

Not to mention his ridiculous explanations that because he is a master of the art of fencing (whatever that is and without having demosntrated that in front of any examinating body), he is capable of develop complete understanding of any fighting system and weapon of any period?
Just because everything is connectedin the space-time continuum?
If things were so easy I could have all the PhDs I wanted.

And that is only part of what has been presented in this particular thread. May I ask what sort of evidence are you looking for?
I'm afraid that I will never be able to produce something that will satisfy you. However if you could tell me what would do, this could be a lot easier.

But really, do not get confused.
If you would come to me and tell me, "I'm a God, worship me" I willl tell you "prove it, otherwise you are a liar"
It is the same with Mr. Macdonald... and as you have said all his answers are insatisfactory.

[Shane Smith]

Fair warning to all involved; this thread is rapidly devolving into a circuitous he-said, she-said affair. That is not the purpose of these forums nor is it instructive or beneficial.

If you have evidence for your position whatever that may be, produce it. If you do not, please refrain from presenting your opinions and perceptions as fact or regurgitating what you've already said in previous posts in this thread.

[Gene Tausk]

Fair warning to all involved; this thread is rapidly devolving into a circuitous he-said, she-said affair. That is not the purpose of these forums nor is it instructive or beneficial.

If you have evidence for your position whatever that may be, produce it. If you do not, please refrain from presenting your opinions and perceptions as fact or regurgitating what you've already said in previous posts in this thread.

I most heartily agree with my friend and fellow Forum moderator on this one. State something new (and back it up factually) or wrap it up.

[Stephen Kilbane]

I most heartily agree with my friend and fellow Forum moderator on this one. State something new (and back it up factually) or wrap it up.

Sounds like a good idea; I'm only here in an attempt to clarify previous confusion, not to convince or argue, so I'll bow out. If anyone's got any questions, please feel free to mail me directly. If you're ever in Edinburgh, you're welcome to drop in and say hello.

I wish you all well in your endeavours.

steve

[Mike Cartier]

I am willing to acknowledge anyone as a master if they do the same for me first.

always wanted to be a master

[Jay Vail]

I am willing to acknowledge anyone as a master if they do the same for me first.

always wanted to be a master

Mike, I promoted you to master at the last gathering. You'd just had too much beer to remember it.

[Michael Eging]

Just a quick note before I bow out of this thread. While I do appreciate the students of Mr. MacDonald weighing in, the responses in the interview were very confusing to me. I believe, for me, that I have trouble when people make sweeping generalizations and rather than supporting them in fact, get caught up inconvoluted explanations that I just cannot understand. My singular problem is a claim of "master" accolades that encompasses the Art of Fencing as a whole -- from century to century. But, as I have said before, we have beaten that rhetorical horse senseless, and I still have not seen or heard anything that convinces me that anyone can apply the term "master" to anything but a much narrower window of "the Art." Any claim that there is a master designation today that covers classical fencing (18th century) and, by individual interpretation, can be expanded to cover all the Medieval and Renaissance forms is just too much of a stretch for me.

We are all students, scholars and explorers. And some of the best swordsmen I have met are proud to be identified by those insightful titles.

All the best,
Mike

[Benjamin Smith]

This is a long thread and maybe I've missed it, but I can't find any direct commentary by Mr. MacDonald on the Loriega incident. If it's there please point me to the page.

I don't think anyone has brought it to their organization's attention in any official manner. Statements on a forum that they probably don't check regularly or in detail aren't official accusations. It would be like me being accused of calling myself a master when I'm not on SFI. No one would say a word until someone came to ARMA and presented something here or directly to our administration. Now I have no doubt that someone would come to ARMA, but until they did it would make no difference. Besides if someone did that I'd deny the charge because I'm innocent of it. If any questions were asked to Mr. Loriega he'd probably say the same whether it was true or not, and whose to say the difference. With no formal charge there is no reason to do anything more from an administration's standpoint. For all they know the accusers are simply badmouthing him because he embarrassed them by beating their best guy at the seminar.

Why? Because there are systems, ways and means to accept and examine accusations, and stating something on a forum simply doesn't count. A forum isn't a body of recognize authority, although those that speak in one might be. It doesn't count in criminal law until someone uses it as evidence to serve someone with a formal charge. It won't count here or there either. This is what trials were invented for. To prevent the innocent from defamation and unjust punishment. I ascribe to my country's statement that people are innocent until proven guilty. It is one of the great tenets of many western civilization's legal systems. If Mr. Loreiga is a fraud I either need to see it for myself, or see it done before a formal tribunal or whatever they use in their organization.

If something really needs to be done about it someone should get those fellows on AAEA to make a formal statement. They're the witnesses, not us. They heard it, we didn't. For some reason inexplicable to me they seem content with letting the community know about the situation. That won't change anything for the better in the said organizations except that people will unofficially boycott Loriega's seminars because of what amounts to a rumor in legal terms.

[Jason Taylor]

I'll admit right now to not having finished this gargantuthread yet, because I'm not going to wait to see how it turns out until the end. So if this is superfluous or covered already, I apologize in advance, but 12 pages is a bit of an obstacle for me, so I'm going to go ahead and post now.

First off, Mr. MacDonald, let me say that I'm making no comments about your ability, background, etc. And I also applaud your involvement in knocking down laws (or trying to) that infringe upon the rights of the legitimate martial artist. But you have said this:

...
When I have been perfectly civil, direct at times yes, but not assuming or derogatory towards individuals here in any way
....

And similar things two or three times in your responses, as if you are being bombarded with undeserved flame-posts, as if you didn't deserve this response because you were civil and polite.

I do not believe that this is a defensible position for the following reasons:

Have you ever had the balls to face this man?

This is certainly not what I would consider "civil"; it is in fact rather aggressive, is definitely a challenge, and is asking for a heated response from the community on the forum. Which may be what you were after; I can't verify your motives in choosing your wording. But you are obviously an intelligent individual, and so I can only guess that you must have expected this response.

As one who claims to be "trained in a living lineage of JKD through the Inosanto system"

The use of the word "claims" here carries an obvious implication that you doubt the statement's veracity. Again, you are clearly smart enough to know this, so it was clearly a deliberate implication. I do not see how this is "not assuming or derogatory towards individuals here in any way."

Additionally, throughout your posts, you invite individuals over and over again to come and "test your skills" themselves. Perhaps you don't mean it this way, but usually---no matter how pretty the language it's couched in--that's a challenge, and it's something akin to a threat to kick someone's butt if they don't believe you. If this isn't what you meant, of course, please say so. But again, challenges to fight (or spar, for that matter) issued in this way smack of macho chest-pounding.

Again, feel free to explain how your perceptions differ from mine on these issues.

On a point more germane to the issues at hand (that is, the study of authentic WMA/RMA/Swordsmanship), I read quite a bit of the article in question, and it seems that Mr. Martinez--who does make quite a few good points--is a bit unclear in his focus. Regardless, however, he claims that there is a living tradition in "other weapons," which he learned from his teacher, who learned them in France in the late 19th Century. This could be longsword, polearm, whatever; it's not entirely clear to me. Anyway, I suppose that's possible. I find it hard to believe that any organized training was occurring as late as that but left no physical evidence to be turned up by the teeming hordes of WMA researchers these days, but okay. But even if such a tradition existed, it's gone now, or it would have come to the foreground by now. I find it really hard to believe that such teachers would be purposefully keeping themselves secret in order to preserve their arts, so Occam's razor tells me that, if such a group ever existed, they're gone now.

Jason