The ARMA and everyone else.

[Johannes Flieger]

Mr. Uribe,

My apologies in advance for what may be a longish post (in an already long thread!).

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.

No, Mr. Uribe. I have explicitly acknowledged that the posters in the AEEA forum level these accusations against Mr. Loriega. See above.

Yet all mention of Messrs. Sinclair and Martinez by these same members of AEEA, whose testimony regarding Loriega you have asked me and others to consider, appear to be extremely positive, sometimes embarrassingly so. Surely, you must either accept or reject their judgement regarding character and professional competence as a whole, not piecemeal. If you want me to take their testimony as evidence against Mr. Loriega, fine; but then you must also accept their judgement regarding the professionalism of Messrs. Martinez and Sinclair. You cannot really have it both ways; to do otherwise would be to "separate matters", as you put it.

I could equally accuse you of conflating matters that are indeed distinct.

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.

Earlier in this thread, you replied to me saying:

Anything else I can do to help, I'll be pleased to cooperate.

I took you words at face value, and I will hold you to them.

Mr. Uribe, I can see that you participated in the threads, which is why I am somewhat perplexed. I have thus far raised certain specific points and questions regarding the content of these threads, and yet I note that you have only replied in general terms. Even yes or no would suffice.

(1) no mention of Paul Macdonald. At all.

(2) mention of Messrs. Martinez and Sinclair, praising their qualities as teachers and fencers.

(3) no post that specifically states that IMAF "ignored and dismissed" the issue.

If we can establish this much common ground, then we might be able to move on to the matter of Mr. Loriega, and stop circling.

As I keep saying, I am not contesting the allegations made against Mr. Loriega. But you provided these links as evidence of professional misconduct on the part of all the IMAF masters, including Messrs. Macdonald, Martinez, and Sinclair. So far, I have found no mention of Paul Macdonald at all, and Messrs. Sinclair and Martinez are described as extremely competent and professional (for example, by Alberto Bomprezzi, head instructor of the AEEA, in a post dated Monday January 31, 2005); posts by other AEEA members, where they mention Messrs. Martinez and Sinclair at all, do so in similar glowing terms.

I can hardly turn up to claim a refund on this basis: "Maestro, I have heard that you are a professional of the highest calibre; I demand you return my tuition forthwith!"

I acknowledge that translations would be useful, as I am certain my Spanish is not as good as yours, and may therefore be missing the "important bits" that you mention. But even a simple link or pointer to the date and author of the post will suffice.

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 am saying what I think, on the basis of the evidence you have presented me with. Moreover, I *am* being courteous. Why do you assume that this is "false"? You do not know me, Sir, and I have thus far made no suggestions whatsoever regarding your motives and intentions.

Mr. Uribe, despite what you may believe, I am trying to establish a dialogue with you. Yet you are forcing me to repeat my questions several times. I have raised specific points which you have neither denied nor assented to; you simply keep telling me to read the threads, and that I'm missing the important bits, but you won't tell me where to find them (no translation is necessary). It's simply that the threads in question do not contain any evidence or witness testimony that Messrs. Martinez, Macdonald, or Sinclair, have committed any professional fraud. Can we agree on this much?

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.

Mr. Uribe, I agree! These are two separate matters. I think we may have found some common ground.

On the first, regarding Mr. Macdonald's credentials: this is a matter for Mr. Macdonald to deal with, which he may have done well or badly. Mr. Kilbane has attempted to help by posting a brief interview.

Then there is the matter of Mr. Loriega.

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.

Precisely! Extraordinary claims tend to be those which carry the greatest burden of proof (though not always).

Regarding both Messrs. Macdonald's and Loriega's qualifications, insofar as they claim some official title or status, the burden of proof is on them to explain its basis and provenance. Here, you and I are in complete agreement.

However, you have also made what appears to be an extraordinary claim, which is that *all* the IMAF masters are guilty of collusion and professional fraud, for motives of money, ego, or whatever. Usually, this is something that requires a bit more in the way of evidence and argumentation than "I have never met these persons or had professional dealings with them, but I read it on the internet so it must be true". If somebody made claims that you were engaged in professional fraud, I hope that your employer and/or customers would demand something more substantial in the way of proof before firing you.

Bear in mind another thing: if you were to ask me to back up my qualifications, such as they are, in a professional context, such as boss-employee, teacher-student, doctor-patient, etc., then I have an ethical (and sometimes legal) obligation to answer you and provide the evidence you ask for. However, if we meet randomly in some social context, such as a party or, *ehem*, an internet forum, it is really at my discretion whether I answer your questions or not (whether it be because I happen not to like the tone in which the question is asked, or simply because I don't feel like it). Of course, you may well think worse of me as a result, but that doesn't change the fact that the context is different.

This of course does not apply to Mr. Loriega, as the inquiries regarding his school came from paying students (i.e., clients).

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.

You are again attributing intentions to me that I have neither stated nor implied. I do not think lowly of of you; if I did, I would not attempt to reason with you. Rather, I think you have simply taken your role of "facedor de entuertos" to heart. A kindred soul, perhaps, as there are times when I too try to be a "desfacedor de entuertos, y destrozador de injurias". This is one of them.

Of course, you have a right to free speech, and you can think and claim what you will. I am not telling you what you can or cannot do; I'm merely asking what evidence you have. From what you have told me, I gather that your evidence consists of the content of this thread, the various webpages of the IMAF masters, and the two AEEA threads you cited. That's all, am I right?

May I also ask whether the following are correct? If so, we may move on.

-- By your own admission, you have never met nor had professional dealings with Paul Macdonald or any other IMAF masters, even when they were in Lansing. So Messrs. Macdonald, Martinez and Sinclair did not specifically lie to you in a professional context; in other words, you were not the victim of professional fraud (unlike me, should your accusation prove true). Moreover, you cannot produce any person who was thus defrauded.

-- Moreover, you do not have certain knowledge of how the allegations regarding Mr. Loriega were handled by IMAF, nor the specific nature of the complaint; in particular, you do not know that they were "ignored".

-- You have not lived in southern Spain nor Seville, and are not familiar with the city to determine, on the basis of your *own* judgement, whether Mr. Loriega's claims are extraordinary or not; for that, you have to rely on the testimony of people familiar with the city, whom you know to be reliable enough to conduct a search in a thorough and competent manner.

--Do you know any of the relevant members of AEEA personally, or spoken with them face-to-face specifically regarding this matter (as opposed to via the Internet)?

I await your response, before moving on. These are all simple points of fact, where a simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

Sincerely,

--Johannes

[Michael Eging]

Okay, having watched this progress, I think I may have expressed desire to leave the thread a little too soon... Mr. Flieger, even though in the spirit of trying to build bridges, you need to step back from this for a moment. There are legitimate questions that have been asked that bear on the "maestro" designation and the legitimacy of a handed-down system of combat. While we can end up in a circular debate with questions and counter-questions intended to trip up each other (and that is really what this is devolving into), we need to focus on the core of the matter... legitimacy of claims of mastery. Proofs that includes "I know this person and others know this person and we can't all be wrong" really are not helping us delve into the core issue.

If this mythical linkeage to earlier weapon systems exists through Mr. Loriega then we all benefit from exposure to that knowledge and understanding. If others are claiming mastery of the ART (t0 include medieval and renaissance systems) based on his instruction and this unseen lineage then we should see that opened up so we can understand it. If this system, lineage, or linkage does not exist then all claims based on it are subject to question (and questioned in a spirited manner - but that is the risk of debate in this forum). Further, it would be erroneous if practitioners are claiming mastery of these earlier weapons through the lineage (by some right of title expansion, ie. I am a maestro in classical fencing ergo...). As I have said earlier (and this debate is side-stepping), the ART of medieval and renaissance weapons is not mystically conferred on practitioners of other weapons systems or through convenient expansion of titles or qualitifications. Even though Mr. MacDonald seemed to agree with this, he also has no qualms about doing just that. Having said that, he may have done work to aquire knowledge of medieval and renaissance systems on his own through study, practice and testing (separate from his "certification"). He should be judged on that work. However, he is not a "maestro" in earlier systems based on a certificate. And to my understanding, there is no one qualified to confer such a designation, or claim it for their own.

Nail this down for us, and many of the questions we have will likely find resolution.

Again, some of the best swordsmen I have seen and encountered (and whom I respect immensely) admit to being students and scholars on a journey of understanding. Without martial experience, and much more understanding than we possess now (or may ever possess), we are not going to reclaim the mantle of the masters. To claim, or sell being a maestro, master, or Zen-channeler of earlier knowledge is just not possible.


All the best,
Mike

[Johannes Flieger]

[snip]

There are legitimate questions that have been asked that bear on the "maestro" designation and the legitimacy of a handed-down system of combat.

I agree. I have no quarrel with legitimate doubts regarding qualifications.

However, there has also been an explicit claim regarding professional fraud. I think that once such a claim has been made, the evidence for it also deserves to be examined.

While we can end up in a circular debate with questions and counter-questions intended to trip up each other (and that is really what this is devolving into), we need to focus on the core of the matter... legitimacy of claims of mastery.
Proofs that includes "I know this person and others know this person and we can't all be wrong" really are not helping us delve into the core issue.

Actually, I think it is quite possible for all of us to be wrong, and I don't think I have argued in the manner you describe---I have not claimed to have proved anything simply in virtue of knowing someone. I have taken the allegations of fraud at face value, and it is precisely because I assume that this allegation was not made frivolously that I wish to examine carefully the evidence that the claim is based on.

Incidentally, I am sorry if I have given you the impression that my questions are some game intended to trip anybody up. I am trying to examine the scope and content of the evidence regarding fraud in a clinical and dispassionate way.

If this mythical linkeage to earlier weapon systems exists through Mr. Loriega then we all benefit from exposure to that knowledge and understanding.

Quite.

If others are claiming mastery of the ART (t0 include medieval and renaissance systems) based on his instruction and this unseen lineage then we should see that opened up so we can understand it.

Again, I agree. Though, as far as I know, I don't think Mr. Loriega has claimed mastery of any mediaeval or renaissance weapons (of Western origin), only a traditional Sevillian lineage in navaja.

If this system, lineage, or linkage does not exist then all claims based on it are subject to question (and questioned in a spirited manner - but that is the risk of debate in this forum).

Certainly. Indeed, I think it should be questioned *very* thoroughly.

Further, it would be erroneous if practitioners are claiming mastery of these earlier weapons through the lineage (by some right of title expansion, ie. I am a maestro in classical fencing ergo...).

Agreed. A master of classical fencing is not, automatically, a master of earlier weapons.

As I have said earlier (and this debate is side-stepping), the ART of medieval and renaissance weapons is not mystically conferred on practitioners of other weapons systems or through convenient expansion of titles or qualitifications.

Yep.

Even though Mr. MacDonald seemed to agree with this, he also has no qualms about doing just that.

Well, as I said earlier I am not here on behalf of Mr. Macdonald, and I am not about to speak on his behalf.

Here is how I interpret the matter. If you will permit me, I will illustrate my point using an analogy.

Consider the field of mathematics. Like many disciplines, this has become highly specialised, and mathematicians can be classed as algebraists, geometers, topologists, combinatorists, logicians, and so on, based on their chosen field of specialisation. These subfields not only have distinct content, but may involve different modes of thinking; a professional mathematician who is a "master" of some particular subfield, say algebra, is not necessarily expert in the others. Nevertheless, most institutions recognise an underlying unity beneath the diversity, sufficient to justify the conferral of a qualification of mastery in Mathematics as a whole, on the basis of mastery of a particular subfield. This qualification may then serve as the basis on which the qualified person goes on to conduct research and teach mathematics *in general*.

Of course, this person would need to put in the necessary additional hard work and research to claim expert knowledge in subfields other than his or her own; but, crucially, he/she would not be expected to undergo a separate examination. As far as certification goes, the original one suffices.

Now, it is possible to argue that the differences outweigh the similarities, and that the qualification obtained is insufficient; but the point at which this happen is not always clear-cut. It is something reasonable men may disagree about. Specifically, disagreement regarding the cut-off point does not make one a fraud.

Having said that, he may have done work to aquire knowledge of medieval and renaissance systems on his own through study, practice and testing (separate from his "certification"). He should be judged on that work.

However, he is not a "maestro" in earlier systems based on a certificate.

Bingo!

And to my understanding, there is no one qualified to confer such a designation, or claim it for their own.

As Mr. Kilbane has mentioned, the same argument could applies to "Provost"; there is no one appropriately qualified to confer such a title.

There is also the matter of the distinct ways in which a term such as "maestro" or "master" may be used.

If your criterion for using the term "master" is Fabris, Capoferro, Fiore, Liechtenauer, etc., then I agree that there is no modern equivalent.

However, the title of "master" can also be used to designate a teacher who has attained a high level of understanding of an art, and is able to impart it by appropriate pedagogical means.

The way I see it, if you let in one historical term, you allow the use of the others; Better then to reject the use of traditional titles completely, and simply employ modern terminology ("instructor", "associate instructor", "junior instructor", etc.).

Again, some of the best swordsmen I have seen and encountered (and whom I respect immensely) admit to being students and scholars on a journey of understanding.

Same here.

Without martial experience, and much more understanding than we possess now (or may ever possess), we are not going to reclaim the mantle of the masters.

Again, I see nothing to disagree with in this statement.

To claim, or sell being a maestro, master, or Zen-channeler of earlier knowledge is just not possible.

Well, as mentioned above, the use of "maestro" has perfectly legitimate uses that do not involve any kind of mystical channeling. Personally, I think that failure to appreciate this is one reason for the strong reactions that this term provokes ("He's comparing himself to Talhoffer!", "He's claiming a direct lineage to Capoferro", etc.)

All the best,
Mike

Likewise,

--Johannes

[John_Clements]

Over a hundred years ago fencing authorities knew full well no one knew much at all anymore about Medieval & Renaissance fencing methods and that no “preserved” teachings had survived among any master or within any school. They admitted it writings still available. Yet now a handful of buffoons want us to pretend otherwise and defer to their unimpressive abilities and call them “masters.” It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

Their past prevarications, contradictory statements, avoidance of questions, and numerous private admissions aside, I for one will not allow their scam of trying to imply to the uninformed and uneducated that dubious titles of modern fencing are any grounds for claiming genuine expertise in the long extinct skills of Renaissance martial arts.

What I find the most offensive in the absurd "ninja-maestro lineage" claims of MacDonald and his tiny clique of co-conspirators --- none of whom have yet to demonstrate impressive fighting skills or superior knowledge of our field --- is not that they make a mockery of our heritage by calling themselves historical “masters” (even as their fighting skills are often mediocre), or that their experience in fencing with modern foils/epees/sabres is no basis for claiming expertise or authority in Renaissance martial arts, or that they lack fundamental knowledge of historical grappling & wrestling, or that they have no evidence to contradict the volumes of writings by 18th & 19th century fencing authorities that no one over the past 200 years had preserved any knowledge of Medieval and Renaissance combatives --- no, what I really find most offensive is that they expect those with greater demonstrable skill than theirs to just accept their deception. The hell with that.

It's also pretty lame to call yourself a "master" then have someone with no title or "lineage" fight circles around you and your students, and them have to suffer the embarrassment of your own "master" teachers publicly avoid crossing swords with them. That alone would shut sincere people down but not fools. They should be all the more embarrassed about proclaiming their inflated titles of "mastery" given the enormous amount of previously unknown historical material that has only recently become available for the first time in centuries.

What's even sillier is that this guy wants us to take seriously that after a mere 5 years or so of modern fencing he then manages --- over just some 2 or 3 years of interaction --- to get “mastery” of an extinct craft that all the rest of us are still researching, reconstructing, and interpreting --- and yet he does it all from two other guys who at the time are themselves living in Milan and NYC while he is living in Scotland. They weren't spending months living with each other...so it must have been one heck of an Internet line to transfer along that much hidden “knowledge.” (Ironically, have you noticed that in the 7 or 8 years since however none of these three “masters” have managed to create even one single new “master”? Funny that. I guess public scrutiny interferes with the passing on of hidden secrets.)


These people have “mastered” nothing...(certainly not marketing and promotion). They are embarrassing themselves and our craft with their complete lack of integrity in this continued charade. For mediocrity alone they deserve no respect, but for this kind of fraud they should be ashamed, and shunned. And whenever possible, publicly exposed by every serious student of this subject who values history, sincerity, and truth.

Anyone interested in reputable standards for this craft that reflect its inherent athleticism, violence, and vigor feel otherwise could not feel otherwise.

With no due respect,

John C.
ARMA Director

[Sam Nankivell]

Over a hundred years ago fencing authorities knew full well no one knew much at all anymore about Medieval & Renaissance fencing methods and that no “preserved” teachings had survived among any master or within any school. They admitted it writings still available. Yet now a handful of buffoons want us to pretend otherwise and defer to their unimpressive abilities and call them “masters.” It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

Their past prevarications, contradictory statements, avoidance of questions, and numerous private admissions aside, I for one will not allow their scam of trying to imply to the uninformed and uneducated that dubious titles of modern fencing are any grounds for claiming genuine expertise in the long extinct skills of Renaissance martial arts.

What I find the most offensive in the absurd "ninja-maestro lineage" claims of MacDonald and his tiny clique of co-conspirators --- none of whom have yet to demonstrate impressive fighting skills or superior knowledge of our field --- is not that they make a mockery of our heritage by calling themselves historical “masters” (even as their fighting skills are often mediocre), or that their experience in fencing with modern foils/epees/sabres is no basis for claiming expertise or authority in Renaissance martial arts, or that they lack fundamental knowledge of historical grappling & wrestling, or that they have no evidence to contradict the volumes of writings by 18th & 19th century fencing authorities that no one over the past 200 years had preserved any knowledge of Medieval and Renaissance combatives --- no, what I really find most offensive is that they expect those with greater demonstrable skill than theirs to just accept their deception. The hell with that.

It's also pretty lame to call yourself a "master" then have someone with no title or "lineage" fight circles around you and your students, and them have to suffer the embarrassment of your own "master" teachers publicly avoid crossing swords with them. That alone would shut sincere people down but not fools. They should be all the more embarrassed about proclaiming their inflated titles of "mastery" given the enormous amount of previously unknown historical material that has only recently become available for the first time in centuries.

What's even sillier is that this guy wants us to take seriously that after a mere 5 years or so of modern fencing he then manages --- over just some 2 or 3 years of interaction --- to get “mastery” of an extinct craft that all the rest of us are still researching, reconstructing, and interpreting --- and yet he does it all from two other guys who at the time are themselves living in Milan and NYC while he is living in Scotland. They weren't spending months living with each other...so it must have been one heck of an Internet line to transfer along that much hidden “knowledge.” (Ironically, have you noticed that in the 7 or 8 years since however none of these three “masters” have managed to create even one single new “master”? Funny that. I guess public scrutiny interferes with the passing on of hidden secrets.)


These people have “mastered” nothing...(certainly not marketing and promotion). They are embarrassing themselves and our craft with their complete lack of integrity in this continued charade. For mediocrity alone they deserve no respect, but for this kind of fraud they should be ashamed, and shunned. And whenever possible, publicly exposed by every serious student of this subject who values history, sincerity, and truth.

Anyone interested in reputable standards for this craft that reflect its inherent athleticism, violence, and vigor feel otherwise could not feel otherwise.

With no due respect,

John C.
ARMA Director

I have said it once and will say it again, although I do respect you Mr. Clements, you really do need to tone it down. In the post right before yours, Mr. Flieger cleared many of these points up. I can accept their are some who take the term "master" or "maestro" and abuse it by thinking they are on par with the masters of the Renaissance or Middle Ages, but Mr. Macdonald and his students are more honest than you think. Macdonald's students and even Macdonald himself have clearly stated that he doesn't claim specific mastery in the Renaissance or Medieval forms of fencing, only in the traditions where he can more accurately be called master, however, that doesn't mean he can't instruct in and investigate earlier methods like you or any experienced ARMA member can. Also, they are using "maestro" in a sense of a teacher of a subject, not a person who knows the subject perfectly.

Honestly, I do respect you, but one thing you have to work on is your diplomacy. Getting angry and insulting the other side will not accomplish anything but widening the schism.

Remember, in any debate there is always a chance your side might be the side proven false, so try to remain humble, that way, defeat isn't such a big deal. After all, although the other side doesn't know everything, neither do we. So try and keep an open mind, that is the spirit of ARMA, isn't it?

[Benjamin Smith]

By the way I should mention that my previous statements only regard the accusations on AAEA and how we ought to treat that particular subject. I think that the article by Mr. Martinez which the beginning of this thread was about perpetuates several points which do not bear scrutiny, I won't bother repeating what has already been said. I just didn't want anybody thinking I was on the other side of the general argument here, because I'm not, I just think we need to be careful with what we read, believe, and say lest we perpetuate something that isn't true as well.

[Jay Vail]

Over a hundred years ago fencing authorities knew full well no one knew much at all anymore about Medieval & Renaissance fencing methods and that no “preserved” teachings had survived among any master or within any school. They admitted it writings still available. Yet now a handful of buffoons want us to pretend otherwise and defer to their unimpressive abilities and call them “masters.” It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

Their past prevarications, contradictory statements, avoidance of questions, and numerous private admissions aside, I for one will not allow their scam of trying to imply to the uninformed and uneducated that dubious titles of modern fencing are any grounds for claiming genuine expertise in the long extinct skills of Renaissance martial arts.

What I find the most offensive in the absurd "ninja-maestro lineage" claims of MacDonald and his tiny clique of co-conspirators --- none of whom have yet to demonstrate impressive fighting skills or superior knowledge of our field --- is not that they make a mockery of our heritage by calling themselves historical “masters” (even as their fighting skills are often mediocre), or that their experience in fencing with modern foils/epees/sabres is no basis for claiming expertise or authority in Renaissance martial arts, or that they lack fundamental knowledge of historical grappling & wrestling, or that they have no evidence to contradict the volumes of writings by 18th & 19th century fencing authorities that no one over the past 200 years had preserved any knowledge of Medieval and Renaissance combatives --- no, what I really find most offensive is that they expect those with greater demonstrable skill than theirs to just accept their deception. The hell with that.

It's also pretty lame to call yourself a "master" then have someone with no title or "lineage" fight circles around you and your students, and them have to suffer the embarrassment of your own "master" teachers publicly avoid crossing swords with them. That alone would shut sincere people down but not fools. They should be all the more embarrassed about proclaiming their inflated titles of "mastery" given the enormous amount of previously unknown historical material that has only recently become available for the first time in centuries.

What's even sillier is that this guy wants us to take seriously that after a mere 5 years or so of modern fencing he then manages --- over just some 2 or 3 years of interaction --- to get “mastery” of an extinct craft that all the rest of us are still researching, reconstructing, and interpreting --- and yet he does it all from two other guys who at the time are themselves living in Milan and NYC while he is living in Scotland. They weren't spending months living with each other...so it must have been one heck of an Internet line to transfer along that much hidden “knowledge.” (Ironically, have you noticed that in the 7 or 8 years since however none of these three “masters” have managed to create even one single new “master”? Funny that. I guess public scrutiny interferes with the passing on of hidden secrets.)


These people have “mastered” nothing...(certainly not marketing and promotion). They are embarrassing themselves and our craft with their complete lack of integrity in this continued charade. For mediocrity alone they deserve no respect, but for this kind of fraud they should be ashamed, and shunned. And whenever possible, publicly exposed by every serious student of this subject who values history, sincerity, and truth.

Anyone interested in reputable standards for this craft that reflect its inherent athleticism, violence, and vigor feel otherwise could not feel otherwise.

With no due respect,

John C.
ARMA Director

I have said it once and will say it again, although I do respect you Mr. Clements, you really do need to tone it down. In the post right before yours, Mr. Flieger cleared many of these points up. I can accept their are some who take the term "master" or "maestro" and abuse it by thinking they are on par with the masters of the Renaissance or Middle Ages, but Mr. Macdonald and his students are more honest than you think. Macdonald's students and even Macdonald himself have clearly stated that he doesn't claim specific mastery in the Renaissance or Medieval forms of fencing, only in the traditions where he can more accurately be called master, however, that doesn't mean he can't instruct in and investigate earlier methods like you or any experienced ARMA member can. Also, they are using "maestro" in a sense of a teacher of a subject, not a person who knows the subject perfectly.

Honestly, I do respect you, but one thing you have to work on is your diplomacy. Getting angry and insulting the other side will not accomplish anything but widening the schism.

Remember, in any debate there is always a chance your side might be the side proven false, so try to remain humble, that way, defeat isn't such a big deal. After all, although the other side doesn't know everything, neither do we. So try and keep an open mind, that is the spirit of ARMA, isn't it?

Sam, people here react strongly to the title "master" because no one, nowhere, no how is entitled to it, regardless of their martial art. I have been doing martial arts for more than 30 years, and from time to time I have run across guys who styled themselves masters or allowed their students to call them that. With one exception, these guys were phonies. I have found that the guys who are the real masters don't hang a sign around their neck and give themselves fancy titles. A guy I study with (or more accurately under) deserves to be called "master" more than anyone I've encountered for his superlative skill, his fighting history and civility, but he is as modest as they come and calls himself just a teacher.

The title "master" as used today in martial arts is a marketing ploy to deceive the inexperienced and to build up a following or to part people from their money. This is especially true in connection with historical martial arts, which is JC's point. Claiming "mastership" in martial arts is fraud, purely and simply. If people get emotional on this point, you must understand that they are trying to defend the credibility of our art, which is threatened by the jerks in the "maestro" crowd.

In any case, I did not find JC's condemnation overheated or inappropriate.

[Alexander Pierre]

For what it's worth, I second Mr. Nankivell.

There is no need for harsh talk, explanations have been provided concerning the use of the Master/Maestro title in the given context.

Regards,
Alexander Pierre

[Jay Vail]

For what it's worth, I second Mr. Nankivell.

There is no need for harsh talk, explanations have been provided concerning the use of the Master/Maestro title in the given context.

Regards,
Alexander Pierre

Alex, there is no excuse, period, for using the title "master."

[Sam Nankivell]

I personally think that "master" or "maestro" should remain a term for someone who has been recognized to be exceptionally skilled in a martial arts context (and not just very good, I mean really, really skilled, as in Musashi, Bruce Lee, Liberi or Liechtenhauer). However, I can accept if one master recognizes another as a master, after all, that is how things get passed down. Key problem here: no masters in Renaissance or Medieval Martial Arts to recognize other masters. Therefore, no masters, until someone very, very, very skilled comes along. Until we can all clearly agree on who that is, we won't have any "Masters". As for recognizing Masters, when one shows up, there won't be much controversy over his or her "Mastership", because with that sheer level of skill required (in my opinion), there isn't much debate. Bruce Lee was a modern day master who pioneered his own martial systems, so it isn't impossible that some "Master" could turn up for Medieval or Renaissance martial arts. It's just that, as I said earlier, there clearly isn't anyone qualified yet. (Wow, I sound like some modern Nostradamus !)

The thing I am objecting to is how inflammatory some of J.C.'s statements are, if he were just a bit more diplomatic, ARMA would have quite a few more allies. It's not that I think that we should compromise on what we think is right, it's just that if we put it in a more friendly fashion (as opposed to the "in your face" fashion), we would have a lot more supporters.

[bob_brooks]

Dear all,

Please bear with me as I respond to 12 pages of vitriol directed at an honourable man.

I've found it necessary to interject to what are blatant falsehoods, downright lies, outrageous claims and indulgent moralising.

You've thrown so much repugnant virtual dirt at Mr Macdonald that it demands a response from someone who actually knows this gentleman and has spent the best part of the last 15 years studying alongside him.

First off:

Calling someone a liar in public - at least in this country - is defamation of character, triable in a court of law, provided you can back your claims up with hard evidence.

You rely entirely on heresay, so let me set you straight.

I met Paul Macdonald at Edinburgh University back in 1994. We established a very good group here in the UK called the Dawn Duellists Society, which included the likes of Guy Windsor from the early days.

People who have gone on to establish themselves as leading lights of WMA.

Paul has studied as many available period treatises as possible since then.

His main focus today is Scottish baskethilt backsword and Scots smallsword according to Hope, Angelo, Rowarth and McBane - areas you have absolutely no knowledge or experience of. In that field, he is an expert. I doubt any of you here are such.

He became a member of IMAF based on the excellent reputation he has developed at home and abroad - not because of Loriega, Martinez or anyone else. All his own work, beyond IMAF. It's simply a group he belongs to. He was invited to join, which he did.

Whether you like IMAF or not, that's a fact.

I left IMAF because it wasn't for me, plain and simple. I acted as secretary for IMAF for five years.

Simply put, it's easy to take cheap shots at people over the world-wide-web, when you're safe behind your desk 4,000 miles away.

You have absolutely nothing on Macdonald whatsoever, despite your grubby attempts to throw dirt at his good character. In your eyes, he's guilty by association, because you have a beef with others in his circle.

He's never claimed a living lineage. That's garbage, in US parlance, and I think you know that.

As for you John Clements, let me remind you of your past achievements.

Let's leave Martinez, Loriega and IMAF out of this for a moment.

We fenced at Oxford in 1999. You and I. You and Macdonald, You and others.

That was eight years ago. So your terms of mediocrity are somewhat out of date.

For what it's worth, h0wever, your insatiable desire for victory above your peers at all costs is what shone through on that occasion. It was you who was indeed mediocre, in every sense of the word.

I'll bullet point the relevant facts.

1. Despite agreeing to hold your attacks to above the knees in a cut and thrust bout, both with myself and Macdonald, you struck me twice in the knee in the opening exchanges. In Macdonald's case, you hacked his shins to a bloody mess. Why? Because you had to 'prove' your martial prowess. Disagree? Then post the video IN FULL, not the gloatingly favourable highlights that you made available at the time.

2. You telegraphed your attacks by making a discernable noise when you moved, leading to counter strikes to your extended target. When they landed, you carried on regardless, striking hard blows and refusing to acknowledge that you had been hit. We held back. You did not. And then you screamed like a girl when we pointed out you were cut first. "Oh, that would have just lacerated flesh" was one of your comments to me, after I stopped you on the forearm.

3. When you fenced Kieran Robb at longsword, he thrust you in the face, knocking you backwards. Again, you screamed, claiming "Oh come now, your blade was flat." The world's only flat thrust.

4. Fast forward to Livermore, where you shamefully brawled with a student, pulled from the seminar crowd, after you failed to demonstrate a hold. You were held aloft by the gent concerned, much to your chagrin, as you continued to try 'techniques' on him. A downright disgrace, witnessed by many.

5. At the same event you knocked one instructor's glasses off his face, blacking his eye. Pure lack of control.

6. At another event, you injured your own Deputy, Jeff Basham, by smashing him in the mouth with your waster. Where his he now?

7. Your disgraceful treatment of ex-Arma members who had enough of your absolutist paranoia. I'll refrain from saying any more on this subject.

8. You managed to stab YOURSELF in the leg with a longsword during one of your famous 'flouryshes'. The fact you injure your students is one thing, but injuring yourself is lamentable.

The fact is John, you like to play the Holier Than Thou card against other practitioners world-wide. That's why you and your organisation are pariahs, who are never invited anywhere to interact and exchange with the rest of us mere mortals.

You somehow bask in a glory that doesn't actually exist outside your own circle. You're a world-leader in your own ranks. Nowhere else.

The fact that you lower yourself to base insults towards others on the safety of your own turf does you and yours even greater disservice.

When I was in Texas in 2000, when Arma hosted the SSI, I found your members - in the main - to be extremely charming and gracious hosts.

I think they actually saw beyond your lies and rhetoric that we folks beyond your grip are actually approachable, friendly and responsive.

How many members do you retain from 2000 to this day? Very few I would say. Why? Because those exposed to the world outside saw something better than your narrow vision of WMA.

What you have now is a new core of fanatics, prepared to uphold the Gospel according to Saint John Clements, no matter what. The same people who defend your first two books which, by your own admission in Oxford, were 'rush-jobs' to secure the fat pay check.

The sad thing for you, John, is, that in time, they will see the light as others have done previously.

You can email me privately at hotspurschool@aol.com, as I have absolutely no intention of responding to another 12 pages of virtual BS on your sad little forum.

One more thing - if you have any courage left in your arachnid-loving carapace, you'll leave my post up and not have Gene or any other minion delete or amend it for supposed 'profanity'.

Honourably,

Bob Brooks
Marshal of the School
Hotspur School of Defence
Northumberland, England.

[Michael Eging]

Dear all,

Please bear with me as I respond to 12 pages of vitriol directed at an honourable man.

I've found it necessary to interject to what are blatant falsehoods, downright lies, outrageous claims and indulgent moralising.

You've thrown so much repugnant virtual dirt at Mr Macdonald that it demands a response from someone who actually knows this gentleman and has spent the best part of the last 15 years studying alongside him.

First off:

Calling someone a liar in public - at least in this country - is defamation of character, triable in a court of law, provided you can back your claims up with hard evidence.

You rely entirely on heresay, so let me set you straight.

I met Paul Macdonald at Edinburgh University back in 1994. We established a very good group here in the UK called the Dawn Duellists Society, which included the likes of Guy Windsor from the early days.

People who have gone on to establish themselves as leading lights of WMA.

Paul has studied as many available period treatises as possible since then.

His main focus today is Scottish baskethilt backsword and Scots smallsword according to Hope, Angelo, Rowarth and McBane - areas you have absolutely no knowledge or experience of. In that field, he is an expert. I doubt any of you here are such.

He became a member of IMAF based on the excellent reputation he has developed at home and abroad - not because of Loriega, Martinez or anyone else. All his own work, beyond IMAF. It's simply a group he belongs to. He was invited to join, which he did.

Whether you like IMAF or not, that's a fact.

I left IMAF because it wasn't for me, plain and simple. I acted as secretary for IMAF for five years.

Simply put, it's easy to take cheap shots at people over the world-wide-web, when you're safe behind your desk 4,000 miles away.

You have absolutely nothing on Macdonald whatsoever, despite your grubby attempts to throw dirt at his good character. In your eyes, he's guilty by association, because you have a beef with others in his circle.

He's never claimed a living lineage. That's garbage, in US parlance, and I think you know that.

As for you John Clements, let me remind you of your past achievements.

Let's leave Martinez, Loriega and IMAF out of this for a moment.

We fenced at Oxford in 1999. You and I. You and Macdonald, You and others.

That was eight years ago. So your terms of mediocrity are somewhat out of date.

For what it's worth, h0wever, your insatiable desire for victory above your peers at all costs is what shone through on that occasion. It was you who was indeed mediocre, in every sense of the word.

I'll bullet point the relevant facts.

1. Despite agreeing to hold your attacks to above the knees in a cut and thrust bout, both with myself and Macdonald, you struck me twice in the knee in the opening exchanges. In Macdonald's case, you hacked his shins to a bloody mess. Why? Because you had to 'prove' your martial prowess. Disagree? Then post the video IN FULL, not the gloatingly favourable highlights that you made available at the time.

2. You telegraphed your attacks by making a discernable noise when you moved, leading to counter strikes to your extended target. When they landed, you carried on regardless, striking hard blows and refusing to acknowledge that you had been hit. We held back. You did not. And then you screamed like a girl when we pointed out you were cut first. "Oh, that would have just lacerated flesh" was one of your comments to me, after I stopped you on the forearm.

3. When you fenced Kieran Robb at longsword, he thrust you in the face, knocking you backwards. Again, you screamed, claiming "Oh come now, your blade was flat." The world's only flat thrust.

4. Fast forward to Livermore, where you shamefully brawled with a student, pulled from the seminar crowd, after you failed to demonstrate a hold. You were held aloft by the gent concerned, much to your chagrin, as you continued to try 'techniques' on him. A downright disgrace, witnessed by many.

5. At the same event you knocked one instructor's glasses off his face, blacking his eye. Pure lack of control.

6. At another event, you injured your own Deputy, Jeff Basham, by smashing him in the mouth with your waster. Where his he now?

7. Your disgraceful treatment of ex-Arma members who had enough of your absolutist paranoia. I'll refrain from saying any more on this subject.

8. You managed to stab YOURSELF in the leg with a longsword during one of your famous 'flouryshes'. The fact you injure your students is one thing, but injuring yourself is lamentable.

The fact is John, you like to play the Holier Than Thou card against other practitioners world-wide. That's why you and your organisation are pariahs, who are never invited anywhere to interact and exchange with the rest of us mere mortals.

You somehow bask in a glory that doesn't actually exist outside your own circle. You're a world-leader in your own ranks. Nowhere else.

The fact that you lower yourself to base insults towards others on the safety of your own turf does you and yours even greater disservice.

When I was in Texas in 2000, when Arma hosted the SSI, I found your members - in the main - to be extremely charming and gracious hosts.

I think they actually saw beyond your lies and rhetoric that we folks beyond your grip are actually approachable, friendly and responsive.

How many members do you retain from 2000 to this day? Very few I would say. Why? Because those exposed to the world outside saw something better than your narrow vision of WMA.

What you have now is a new core of fanatics, prepared to uphold the Gospel according to Saint John Clements, no matter what. The same people who defend your first two books which, by your own admission in Oxford, were 'rush-jobs' to secure the fat pay check.

The sad thing for you, John, is, that in time, they will see the light as others have done previously.

You can email me privately at hotspurschool@aol.com, as I have absolutely no intention of responding to another 12 pages of virtual BS on your sad little forum.

One more thing - if you have any courage left in your arachnid-loving carapace, you'll leave my post up and not have Gene or any other minion delete or amend it for supposed 'profanity'.

Honourably,

Bob Brooks
Marshal of the School
Hotspur School of Defence
Northumberland, England.

I have been involved with sports, sport fencing, and now WMA, most of my life. Let me just say that trash talk usually doesn't get you much as it only proves that you have an axe to grind and and your point get's lost in the vitriol. I for one am interested in these topics, and asked questions after becoming confused by inartful response, etc. Note, I have tried to deal with the issues with respect to understand and try to clarify. Mr. Brooks, obviously you have some unresolved issues. However, you have done nothing to edify us, or constuctively move the conversation forward. I, for one, step out from behind the safety of my desk every day to live life, and do not think that was the basis for my getting involved here.

I have asked a couple of different things that are intriguing to me after reading the thread and going to the various websites referenced. I have asked for clarity and found none. I think for some of us, having the insights from the principles, and not sweeping generalizations (as we mindless minions are want to have clarified). I think that is where this thread began and if we can keep it there, maybe something can come out of this to edify the entire group. Trashing our forum, the populace of the forum and ARMA as a whole is not really getting us to this. Honestly, I have enjoyed interactions with other WMA groups and seeing where they are in their understanding of WMA, the texts, etc. I didn't realize I was so isolated until Mr. Brooks threw that out with many other sweeping generalizations.

Mr. Brooks, seems you have likely only helped to polarize the discussion further and that is the shame.

Now, to my thoughts based on Johannes response .... sorry, had to share my thoughts on the previous post.

Let's get one point out of the way first.

Provost.

A university administrator of high rank.
The highest official in certain cathedrals or collegiate churches.
The keeper of a prison.
The chief magistrate of certain Scottish cities.

A couple of different definitions. As I see the ARMA scholar construction, the term seems to designate a martial/scholarly attainment that fits somewhere in the spirit of the first definition and the second (along with other more military definitions). Attainment of the designation in ARMA is a transparent process and designates a senior scholar with a nod toward our martial tradition. There is a review process and you can be assured of who is reviewing the work, the requirements, etc. Works for me. I hate red herrings and this was just a live twitchy one.

Let me address the major argument you postulated though, Johannes, as it doesn't hold much water. Equating martial understanding with mathematics or sciences doesn't really work here. With mathematics, you can go back and test the equations, apply the "principles" because they are contained in a realm of application that does not require things like footwork, blade alignment, experience in a martial setting, or death. Medieval or renaissance swordsmanship is so far removed from classical fencing or sport fencing that it cannot be linearly linked like a form of science or mathematics. There is no continuum of muscle memory, martial reflex, etc. to link to the forms and principles in the texts.

You had me fooled thinking you got it until you went there. The gaps in real life application and the deadends and restarts do not make it possible for us to take the forms of other martial arts and apply them. We are recreating to the best of our ability and without the practical application on the battlefield, or in a back alley (no holds barred), we cannot have the same level of understanding. For some practitioners it could become very easy to sportifiy the works of the medieval and renaissance masters in a controlled environment. So is it really how they would have practiced and applied the ART? Or has it become a game? This is something for us all to test and challenge.

I think it interesting that we have students (minions is too harsh a word - but the previous poster might like the sound of that one) agreeing with our positions, but the principles have kind of bowed out because they couldn't clearly answer some of the questions. Now, this is okay, but it also means we can't get to the heart of the matter. As much as I think it would be fun verbally jousting with you Johannes (and I mean that), you really aren't prepared to answer the questions that are most intriguing to me, and it seems, neither is Mr. Brooks. I think this is where the frustration bubbles up from that is being expressed here. Responses to the core questions came in the form of offers to come to first hand experience martial prowess (get our clocks cleaned is how it felt to me, as I speak only for me), or in esoteric generalizations.

So be it. As one of the "mindless minions," I have been respectful because this is of interest to me and, frankly, I don't know any of the principles. I can only understand through their participation, through their words on websites, in threads, or other materials. I think I have shown Mr. MacDonald the utmost respect, while not losing my right to ask questions. Mr. Brooks, you may also find a better reception if you allow the right of others to ask questions without attacking one and all with your own personal axe to grind. I'm not so sure you did yourself a service with your post on this forum that is so clearly beneath the wisdom you imparted. Our wise parents have oft told us that two wrongs don't make a right. Hey, I don't think that is copyrighted or trademarked, so I give you permission to use it...

All the best,

Mike[/i]

[Johannes Flieger]

Well, gentlemen.

At this point, things truly seem to have reached full circle. I will make my final comments before bowing out of this thread, as I don't see the prospect of any constructive discourse from here on. Many thanks to all those who have given my remarks due consideration.

Mr. Uribe: despite appearances, I am happy to have discussed this matter with you, as I was genuinely interested in the nature of your evidence against Messrs. Macdonald, Martinez, and Sinclair. I had intended to get to the matter of Mr. Loriega eventually (where your doubts may have some foundation), but if you wish, we can continue this conversation privately in future.

Mr. Vail:

Sam, people here react strongly to the title "master" because no one, nowhere, no how is entitled to it, regardless of their martial art. [...snip... ]A guy I study with (or more accurately under) deserves to be called "master" more than anyone I've encountered for his superlative skill, his fighting history and civility, but he is as modest as they come and calls himself just a teacher.

Mr. Vail, if you wish to restrict the application of the term "master" to exponents of such superlative skill that they are not to be found in any martial art, anywhere in the world, then by all means do so. I will happily grant that there are no "masters" in your sense. What I have tried to explain is that there is a perfectly acceptable use of the terms "master" (or "maestro" in Spanish and Italian) in which it simply means just that, teacher. You may not like it, but please do not assume that when others use the term they are automatically claiming to be demigods.

Mr. Clements:

[snip]

What I find the most offensive in the absurd "ninja-maestro lineage" claims of MacDonald and his tiny clique of co-conspirators [...] is that they expect those with greater demonstrable skill than theirs to just accept their deception. The hell with that.

It's also pretty lame to call yourself a "master" then have someone with no title or "lineage" fight circles around you and your students, and them have to suffer the embarrassment of your own "master" teachers publicly avoid crossing swords with them. That alone would shut sincere people down but not fools.

Mr. Clements, when you talk about yourself "fighting circles" around people, and masters refusing your challenges, etc. you refer to incidents of which I have no knowledge, so I cannot comment. I am sure that you and many other members of ARMA are proficient martial artists, and I admire the fact that you test your skills in combat. But frankly, I am not one to be impressed by vague boasts such as this.

Indeed, the impression I am beginning to get from your remarks is that what bothers you the most about the "fools" you disparage is that they won't acknowledge you as 'top dog'.

[snip]

These people have “mastered” nothing...(certainly not marketing and promotion).

Ah, the two most essential qualifications of a fencing master!

They are embarrassing themselves and our craft with their complete lack of integrity in this continued charade. For mediocrity alone they deserve no respect, but for this kind of fraud they should be ashamed, and shunned. And whenever possible, publicly exposed by every serious student of this subject who values history, sincerity, and truth.

Mr. Clements, you do not have a monopoly on these values. If you can demonstrate fraud, then I will be the first to support you. But I have never heard these "buffoons" make the claims you attribute to them.

Oh, and

With no due respect,

John C.
ARMA Director

I can see that your modesty is exceeded only by your good manners. A good day to you, too!

Sincerely,

--Johannes

[Francisco Uribe]

Mr. Brooks, what a surprise...
How do you pretend to be taken seriously if you told me that you wanted to open a dialog, but I do not see you doing more that exactly what you abhor other people to do?
Why havent you replied any of my several mails?
Ought I remember you that YOU wanted to start a dialog,regarding your pal Paul's lies????????

mezmeriziled yours...
Francisco Uribe.

PS: Please respond your emails as you said you would. I'm gettint tired of trying to have a conversation as you said you wanted to.
Do you have some sort of typing problem?
Considering your post here, it would be unfair to assume so.

Dear all,

Please bear with me as I respond to 12 pages of vitriol directed at an honourable man.

I've found it necessary to interject to what are blatant falsehoods, downright lies, outrageous claims and indulgent moralising.

You've thrown so much repugnant virtual dirt at Mr Macdonald that it demands a response from someone who actually knows this gentleman and has spent the best part of the last 15 years studying alongside him.

First off:

Calling someone a liar in public - at least in this country - is defamation of character, triable in a court of law, provided you can back your claims up with hard evidence.

You rely entirely on heresay, so let me set you straight.

I met Paul Macdonald at Edinburgh University back in 1994. We established a very good group here in the UK called the Dawn Duellists Society, which included the likes of Guy Windsor from the early days.

People who have gone on to establish themselves as leading lights of WMA.

Paul has studied as many available period treatises as possible since then.

His main focus today is Scottish baskethilt backsword and Scots smallsword according to Hope, Angelo, Rowarth and McBane - areas you have absolutely no knowledge or experience of. In that field, he is an expert. I doubt any of you here are such.

He became a member of IMAF based on the excellent reputation he has developed at home and abroad - not because of Loriega, Martinez or anyone else. All his own work, beyond IMAF. It's simply a group he belongs to. He was invited to join, which he did.

Whether you like IMAF or not, that's a fact.

I left IMAF because it wasn't for me, plain and simple. I acted as secretary for IMAF for five years.

Simply put, it's easy to take cheap shots at people over the world-wide-web, when you're safe behind your desk 4,000 miles away.

You have absolutely nothing on Macdonald whatsoever, despite your grubby attempts to throw dirt at his good character. In your eyes, he's guilty by association, because you have a beef with others in his circle.

He's never claimed a living lineage. That's garbage, in US parlance, and I think you know that.

As for you John Clements, let me remind you of your past achievements.

Let's leave Martinez, Loriega and IMAF out of this for a moment.

We fenced at Oxford in 1999. You and I. You and Macdonald, You and others.

That was eight years ago. So your terms of mediocrity are somewhat out of date.

For what it's worth, h0wever, your insatiable desire for victory above your peers at all costs is what shone through on that occasion. It was you who was indeed mediocre, in every sense of the word.

I'll bullet point the relevant facts.

1. Despite agreeing to hold your attacks to above the knees in a cut and thrust bout, both with myself and Macdonald, you struck me twice in the knee in the opening exchanges. In Macdonald's case, you hacked his shins to a bloody mess. Why? Because you had to 'prove' your martial prowess. Disagree? Then post the video IN FULL, not the gloatingly favourable highlights that you made available at the time.

2. You telegraphed your attacks by making a discernable noise when you moved, leading to counter strikes to your extended target. When they landed, you carried on regardless, striking hard blows and refusing to acknowledge that you had been hit. We held back. You did not. And then you screamed like a girl when we pointed out you were cut first. "Oh, that would have just lacerated flesh" was one of your comments to me, after I stopped you on the forearm.

3. When you fenced Kieran Robb at longsword, he thrust you in the face, knocking you backwards. Again, you screamed, claiming "Oh come now, your blade was flat." The world's only flat thrust.

4. Fast forward to Livermore, where you shamefully brawled with a student, pulled from the seminar crowd, after you failed to demonstrate a hold. You were held aloft by the gent concerned, much to your chagrin, as you continued to try 'techniques' on him. A downright disgrace, witnessed by many.

5. At the same event you knocked one instructor's glasses off his face, blacking his eye. Pure lack of control.

6. At another event, you injured your own Deputy, Jeff Basham, by smashing him in the mouth with your waster. Where his he now?

7. Your disgraceful treatment of ex-Arma members who had enough of your absolutist paranoia. I'll refrain from saying any more on this subject.

8. You managed to stab YOURSELF in the leg with a longsword during one of your famous 'flouryshes'. The fact you injure your students is one thing, but injuring yourself is lamentable.

The fact is John, you like to play the Holier Than Thou card against other practitioners world-wide. That's why you and your organisation are pariahs, who are never invited anywhere to interact and exchange with the rest of us mere mortals.

You somehow bask in a glory that doesn't actually exist outside your own circle. You're a world-leader in your own ranks. Nowhere else.

The fact that you lower yourself to base insults towards others on the safety of your own turf does you and yours even greater disservice.

When I was in Texas in 2000, when Arma hosted the SSI, I found your members - in the main - to be extremely charming and gracious hosts.

I think they actually saw beyond your lies and rhetoric that we folks beyond your grip are actually approachable, friendly and responsive.

How many members do you retain from 2000 to this day? Very few I would say. Why? Because those exposed to the world outside saw something better than your narrow vision of WMA.

What you have now is a new core of fanatics, prepared to uphold the Gospel according to Saint John Clements, no matter what. The same people who defend your first two books which, by your own admission in Oxford, were 'rush-jobs' to secure the fat pay check.

The sad thing for you, John, is, that in time, they will see the light as others have done previously.

You can email me privately at hotspurschool@aol.com, as I have absolutely no intention of responding to another 12 pages of virtual BS on your sad little forum.

One more thing - if you have any courage left in your arachnid-loving carapace, you'll leave my post up and not have Gene or any other minion delete or amend it for supposed 'profanity'.

Honourably,

Bob Brooks
Marshal of the School
Hotspur School of Defence
Northumberland, England.

[Johannes Flieger]

Dear Michael,

[post edited to indicate addressee]

Our posts must have crossed, so my apologies for not replying to you in my last post. You raise some perfectly good points, worthy of discussion; here is a brief reply, but if you wish to pursue the issue any further we will have to move it to another venue. Given the atmosphere of recrimination hanging over this thread, I don't think it would be profitable to continue here.

As for the analogy I presented, my purpose was not to say that fencing should be modelled on mathematics, but to illustrate how it is possible for someone to think of a discipline as a unified whole, in spite of the differences in the parts. The point at which this ceases to be the case is a legitimate question, about which men can disagree without one of the parties being construed as fraudulent. Your points about real encounters, back alleys, etc. are all valid.

As for the rank of Provost, from your description ARMA has a well-developed and thorough review system, perhaps one that other organisations should emulate. But having granted that, we still have the fact that historically, in the context of only a master can recognise a provost, so whether or not you employ the title of "master" in your grading system, whoever grants the title is adopting the rights and duties of a master in everything but name.

That said, I have no criticism of how ARMA operates. I'm simply pointing out that, in my view, if you're going to let in some historical ranks, you let them all in; better then to do away with them altogether. I have no particular issue with dropping the term "master" or "maestro", and adopting a modern ranking system---though I would probably object to using belts and 'dan' grades.

On that note, good-bye. As I said, no more posts here from me.

Best regards,

--Johannes