Gene, Could You Comment on This Concern over the Recent Magazine? [Archive]

GeneChing

06-13-2005, 09:05 PM

I have a lot of respect for both Scott and Philip - I think they have done tremendous work in the field of Chinese swords. My only complaint is that they are using a scholarly/academic standard on our dear little newsstand magazine, which is quite an unfair barometer really. We are not a scholarly journal or we wouldn't be on the newsstands. We are a popular magazine. That being said, it's always a challenge to maintain an academic degree of accuracy, especially hard when the so-called academic researchers are giving us grief for doing what we do, but we do the best we can. Sure, there are occassional errors and we do publish retractions/corrections (unlike the other martial arts magazines) when such things are clearly necessary.

Now, I had contacted Scott personally to participate in the our Sword special (http://www.martialartsmart.net/kf2001226.html) in an effort to bring their fine contributions to popular print. Their article was wonderful, but sadly, Philip chose to denigrate that issue in a letter to our magazine which we published in our May June 2005 (http://www.martialartsmart.net/kf200128.html) - his main point was that the other articles weren't up to snuff, so to speak, to the level of theirs. I understand and empathize with Philip's complaint, however I think he has lost perspective of the nature of martial arts publishing. I've often thought the same of my articles back when I was freelancing, but I'd consider it a bit of a breech of martial etiquette to say so formally. In that light, their follow-up posts on web forums might seem rather pithy, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here and acknowledge the power of web publishing.

Now, in the academic circles, they say 'publish or perish' This might be outdated in lieu of web forums, and might a a strange way to prove my point since I came out initially against taking an academic perspective of martial arts magazines. But even here, the nature of publishing is you got to publish to prove your point. You got to get past an editor to be 'real'. Anyone can say whatever they like on online forums - just like anyone can mouth off outside the ring - but if you want to really take some one to task, you gotta step in the arena. You got to publish in a mag.

I know that both Philip and Scott have a lot of issues with sword collector Wang Sheng Ji. Right now, Taiwan Wulin is promoting him quite a bit. There, he is quite illustrious. If Scott and Philip wish to discredit him, they need to publish something of their own. Now, we don't publish tirades against other people - there's already enough negativity in martial arts politics and we try our best to stay out of it. If Scott or Phillip would like to publish something more positive - like give us an example of one of their weapons for a featured weapon, I've made an open call to any dealer to showcase their wares (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36807). I'd welcome something from Scott or Phillip. Unfortunately, Philip's letter was the last time I have had any contact with either gentleman. Both Scott and Philip have all my contact information.

Doug

06-14-2005, 12:29 PM

My only complaint is that they are using a scholarly/academic standard on our dear little newsstand magazine, which is quite an unfair barometer really. We are not a scholarly journal or we wouldn't be on the newsstands. We are a popular magazine.
So you have no responsibility in the claims you make as the magazine's editor, publisher, and writer? The magazine, in presenting weapons as representations of the contexts that you provide, can wash its hands of claiming a weapon is what it most likely is not? Don't you find this is an unethical stance that you, as an editor and as a person in position to use your authority to affect change in such matters, are taking? Do you really think you are justified in presenting false information as truth?

And please let me know what is wrong with "a scholarly/academic standard" for a "dear little newsstand magazine." Are the standards of good journalism too much for Kung Fu Magazine? I hope not. If that is the case, every story presented is suspect and unreliable if "a scholarly/academic standard" is not good enough to verify the basics of accuracy.

This disappoints me, Gene, that you would even claim this. I have been a reader of this magazine for some time and have endorsed it. But if your standard is even lower than that of academic ones--by "lower" I mean you disregard them--then I wonder why I should even bother reading or endorsing this magazine anymore. I mean, if the editor feels this way, what else is there to do?
That being said, it's always a challenge to maintain an academic degree of accuracy, especially hard when the so-called academic researchers are giving us grief for doing what we do, but we do the best we can.
What do you mean by "the so-called academic researchers"? You point out people by name , so, perhaps, you can be specific here as well. And how are "they" causing you and everyone else at the magazine "grief"? What is this "grief" that you refer to? Is it concern over blunders, perhaps?

And how can you "maintain an academic degree of accuracy" when you are a "popular magazine" that "wouldn't be on the newsstands" if you used "a scholarly/academic standard"? Why is it you are claiming one by denying the other? One can say that it is "especially hard" to "maintain an academic degree of accuracy" when the "academic standard" is left behind the "popular magazine" standards.
Sure, there are occassional errors and we do publish retractions/corrections (unlike the other martial arts magazines) when such things are clearly necessary.
But that is not the point here, right? This is about not making the mistake in the first place.
Now, I had contacted Scott personally to participate in the our Sword special (http://www.martialartsmart.net/kf2001226.html) in an effort to bring their fine contributions to popular print. Their article was wonderful, but sadly, Philip chose to denigrate that issue in a letter to our magazine which we published in our May June 2005 (http://www.martialartsmart.net/kf200128.html) - his main point was that the other articles weren't up to snuff, so to speak, to the level of theirs.
Why "sadly," Gene? Should he have praised it where he (and plenty of us) felt that the issue was suspect in the first place? Yes, both Scott and Philip's article is top notch. The other articles, since you bring them up (I have no way to know if Philip actually stated what you claim), do not compare to theirs in terms of the level of academic research and presentation. There is no mistake--it is a good article. But the otehrs had potential to be much better, including the words and visuals. In a "sword issue," I would think that it would be loaded with antiques, historical observations, blade analyses, and so forth. But what we get are articles with wushu blades and suspect "antiques" as well as flat-out article endorsements for the heavy jian that you advertise in the magazine. We, as readers, only read one academic article.

Philip is right to criticize the issue, and it is not at all "sad" that he does. It is easier to blame otehrs for our own doings, yes?
I understand and empathize with Philip's complaint, however I think he has lost perspective of the nature of martial arts publishing.
Well, then, please explain what is "the nature of martial arts publishing." Are these "publishing" standards apart from the "scholarly/academic standard" that are "quite an unfair barometer" of this magazine's standards? Seriously, I am curious about this "nature of martial arts publishing" because I have never heard of this golden ticket from the same rules that all journalism--honest, good journalism--abides by. Is it any different from your own investigation into the role of the tassel/sash on short- and long-handled dao? Because I would like to know this definition unfolds.

How has Philip "lost perspective" as well? You must know what it is, particularly since you don't mention what it actually is.
I've often thought the same of my articles back when I was freelancing, but I'd consider it a bit of a breech of martial etiquette to say so formally.
Again, some clarification would help.
In that light, their follow-up posts on web forums might seem rather pithy, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here and acknowledge the power of web publishing.
Well, of course they are forceful (pithy) when they see Chinese weapons being misrepresented in what is considered a prety big Chinese martial arts publication in the U.S. Their arguments are strong for good reason: they make good points. They care about these kinds of things--these Chinese weapons and their placement in history.

What do you mean by "I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here and acknowledge the power of web publishing"? For what do you have to give them "the benefit of the doubt"? What is your point about "acknowledg the power of web publishing"? You meaning is not at all clear, and I would rather wait for a response to clear up what it appears to mean. It sounds insulting, but you may mean something entirely different, so I would appreciate some detail as to what you mean.

And, no offense, but no one here is in a position to "acknowledge the power of web publishing." It is here to stay, with or without our acknowledgment.
Now, in the academic circles, they say 'publish or perish' This might be outdated in lieu of web forums, and might a a strange way to prove my point since I came out initially against taking an academic perspective of martial arts magazines.
The question is whether this quasi-proverb has helped the magazine and you in this case more than it has harmed.
But even here, the nature of publishing is you got to publish to prove your point. You got to get past an editor to be 'real'. Anyone can say whatever they like on online forums - just like anyone can mouth off outside the ring - but if you want to really take some one to task, you gotta step in the arena. You got to publish in a mag.
"You got to get past an editor to be 'real'?" Again, this is kind of confusing not only because the meaning is so abstract but also because [I]you are on the editorial board of the magazine! So you must "get past" yourself to be "real"? You can see why that seems awkward, right?

Sure, you can say that "the nature of publishing is you got to publish to prove your point," but if your point is suspect, you should question whether or not you should publish the point in question. Yet, in your first paragraph, you claim that academic standards are too high for proving your point in a "polular magazine." So truth does not matter much if the standards are low enough to encompass all the accepted, stereotypic assumptions people have about Chinese weaponry. You see where this is a problem, right?

About the rest of the paragraph--I wonder where that is going. It seems like you are taking a passive shot at Philip and Scott, but you are equally guilty of "say[ing] whatever [you] like on online forums - just like anyone can mouth off outside the ring." You say that "if you want to really take some one to task, you gotta step in the arena." Well, if you want Kung Fu Magazine to be taken seriously, "you gotta step in the arena" of honest representation of Chinese weaponry. This means using--GULP--academic standards of research. I mean, the weapon in question is entirely questionable in terms of the claims made about it.

Doug

06-14-2005, 12:31 PM

I know that both Philip and Scott have a lot of issues with sword collector Wang Sheng Ji. Right now, Taiwan Wulin is promoting him quite a bit. There, he is quite illustrious. If Scott and Philip wish to discredit him, they need to publish something of their own.
Wait--you claim that "we don't publish tirades against other people - there's already enough negativity in martial arts politics and we try our best to stay out of it." Yet you point out "a lot of issue" between these parties. If you really are " try [your] best to stay out of it," why even more "negativity in martial arts politics" that is not well known? This is the first I have heard about it. Scott and Philip certainly do not make their mission at www.swordforum.com to badmouth others at the online forum, but your statement contributes to "negativity in martial arts." Don't you think you are contradicting yourself?

I also question your characterization of their actions. Are they trying "to discredit him" or trying to up the standards of this magazine?
If Scott or Phillip would like to publish something more positive - like give us an example of one of their weapons for a featured weapon, I've made an open call to any dealer to showcase their wares (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36807). I'd welcome something from Scott or Phillip. Unfortunately, Philip's letter was the last time I have had any contact with either gentleman. Both Scott and Philip have all my contact information.
Well, you have their contact information as well. One-way streets are quite rare these days.

Again, no offense, but how do you expect them to submit anything else for publication in this magazine when, in their last article, various things were edited with historical inaccuracies? You see how this could [I]maybe be a problem, yes?

I would like to see this magazine increase its standards with what it publishes in order to reach standards of good journalism and reseach. It doe not have to become a copy of The Journal of Asian Martial Arts, but what is so wrong with being more critical of your own operations? One of the reasons why you would not want these "popular magazine" standards to change is because you would want the level of inaccuracies to continue because, for a "popular magzine," they are good for business. They keep people ignorant about true, recorded history and hyped up on modern conceptions of what is true about Chinese weapons. But they misrepresent a whole lot of things historical. And if it is in your means to change these inaccuracies, the responsibility of being on the editorial board is that much the greater.

Doug

06-14-2005, 12:33 PM

No, Doug, I was not talking to you as you would not have any input in putting their blades in the mag. I was talking to Gene.
Well, be clear next time.
Over the last couple of years I have tried to get Phillip and Scott to post their stuff over on the sword forum.
Unsuccessful, eh?

BM2

06-14-2005, 04:55 PM

[QUOTE=Doug][/B]
Scott and Philip certainly do not make their mission at www.swordforum.com to badmouth others at the online forum

Hmmm.... Ever hear of Bonnie and Alex? There was a Pole as well but I forgot his name who also was a dealer.

We all make mistakes. Those who think they do not...are mistaken :p

Very little has been published about antique Chinese weapons and some that has been pulished is wrong. Mistakes are often made because of this. I paid around 900 dollars for a set of double "antique" jians from Scott about 10 (?) years ago. Now I have never even held a real antique jian before but what arrived looked like it was way to flimsy to be a weapon. When I phoned Scott about my concern about what I bought, he asked me to send them to Phillip to look at them. Phillip, at his own expense, phoned me that they were most likely an opera prop and not weapons. I returned them to Scott.
I own a double dao that I am very much pleased with that I obtained from Scott. They have been dated by both Phillip and Alex as being late 18th century. Alex even wanted to purchase them from me as they have the same type of guard as a jian that he owns ( the daos have a jian type guard).
I have learned a lot (everything?) from the swordforum. Phillip has shed much light on a subject that has many mis-informed ''facts''. It is easliy understood why he is trying to educate others from publishing articles that continue to spread common mistakes.
Gene, I'm sure that the sword issue sold well and I would buy another one :) .

GeneChing

06-14-2005, 11:18 PM

For every single master and every single claim in martial arts, there is someone who will call them 'fake'. For the more successful ones, there are dozens who will call 'fake'. We do our best here to keep the fakes to a minimum, as does any publication. Obviously, it's not any publications best interest to publish things that aren't true (except maybe the Weekly World News). There's no money in us perpetuating any myths. In fact, my personal mission with the magazine is to bust as many myths as I can. It's not as easy as you might think.

That being said, I'm the first to admit that we have made occassional errors in publishing. What's more, to be perfectly honest, we'll probably make more. Every publication makes mistakes - Time, Newsweek, National Geographic, and they have millions of dollars at their disposal. If that offends you, stop reading. We do the best we can, given our limited resources. Of course, we do have our standards, but they certainly aren't up to the level of academic standards. They couldn't be. There's a vast difference between scholarly research and newsstand magazines. I assisted in teaching a graduate level course in Chinese Martial Arts at Stanford last year and the level of scholarship was tremendous. In newsstand magazines, we don't even cite sources (well, actually, we have in the past, but generally we avoid that). It's a completely different standard. An academic journal has the power of major universities behind it. We don't even make enough in advertising to be equivalent of the tuition of one full-term student. Think about that before you criticise us for not maintaining an academic standard.

Right now, there are only two people that I am aware of that are publicly decrying Wang Sheng Ji as a fake - Scott and Phillip. While I completely respect their opinions, I also respect the opinions of Wang's supporters. Often, as a publisher here in the martial world, I'm caught in between competing factions. Is it my position to judge who is right and who is wrong? Sometimes. But to be honest, I'd much rather see the opposing parties present there work in a positive light as opposed to bashing each other. If Scott and Tom truly want to raise the standards of our magazine, they should publish something with us. I'd eagerly look at their submissions. If they are skiddish about editing, well, again, welcome to the world of publishing. I was freelance for many years before taking this position so I know what it means to be subject to editing. Since I've taken this position, you'll find that our editing is the least obtrusive of any of the martial arts magazines. FWIW, if your writing is so fragile that it can't stand a little editing, either your ego is too big or your just a crappy writer. Probably both. :p

Now, if I had the resource to allocate to triple-check every story we publish, I would, but frankly, it's a struggle just to keep a niche print magazine on the newsstand nowadays. You know what my biggest concern has been for the past week or so? Finland. There's a huge paper strike in Finland that has driven the paper market sky high. If we can't find paper we can afford in the next few days, there will be nothing to print on. This is actually par for the course in publishing. It's a tremendous amount of work and we do the very best we can for martial arts, but we are limited by the economy - we're not making a ton of money at this. In fact, like with this new paper crises, it's a struggle to stay afloat. I've been working professionally in the martial arts for well over a decade (not by teaching, mind you) and there's just not that much money in it. Far too many martial artists are more interested in supporting themselves than supporting the martial arts community and economy.

So my friends, you can bash us all you like, but it won't change the facts. If you want better martial arts publications, you have to do it yourself. That's what I've done, and this is as far as I've got at this point. I hope you'll join me and submit something (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/about/guidelines.php) - put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

Doug

06-15-2005, 10:23 AM

For every single master and every single claim in martial arts, there is someone who will call them 'fake'. For the more successful ones, there are dozens who will call 'fake'.
But that is martial arts, not accurate research. Somehow, being able to tell whether a weapon is authentic or not is a little more reliable than someone calling another martial artist a fake.
Obviously, it's not any publications best interest to publish things that aren't true (except maybe the Weekly World News). There's no money in us perpetuating any myths.[QUOTE][B]
Well, there is actually is plenty of money in perpetuating myths. It keeps life for select people the way it is--for instnace, war as the answer to United States foreign relations. That is a myth that is easily maintained and accepted, and it results in a lot of money for the occupier.

The same goes for history. If history is shaped to conform to a certain picture of the world, standards are maintianed. The same goes for identifying Chinese weapons as the real deal or cheap knockoffs.
[QUOTE][B]In fact, my personal mission with the magazine is to bust as many myths as I can. It's not as easy as you might think.
Well, if you really mean this, then you have much applause for it. But you can see the difficulty of accepting that by the focus of this thread, right?
That being said, I'm the first to admit that we have made occassional errors in publishing. What's more, to be perfectly honest, we'll probably make more. Every publication makes mistakes - Time, Newsweek, National Geographic, and they have millions of dollars at their disposal. If that offends you, stop reading.
It is not a simple set of mistakes. It is a strong inaccuracy. There is a difference.
There's a vast difference between scholarly research and newsstand magazines. I assisted in teaching a graduate level course in Chinese Martial Arts at Stanford last year and the level of scholarship was tremendous. In newsstand magazines, we don't even cite sources (well, actually, we have in the past, but generally we avoid that). It's a completely different standard.
So we, the readership, shoud question everything in the magazine because academic standards are too high, yes? that is ridiculous.
An academic journal has the power of major universities behind it. We don't even make enough in advertising to be equivalent of the tuition of one full-term student. Think about that before you criticise us for not maintaining an academic standard.
While you are making an argument for economics, I will make an argument for ethics, which, in this case, is not so much about the money but time and effort.

Again, the finger points elsewhere! It is easier, I know, but this is not the time to do it. The fault for the problem is not anyone else's but the magazines. Why not think about what is being published before publishing it?

It is a critique, not an attack on you, Gene.
Right now, there are only two people that I am aware of that are publicly decrying Wang Sheng Ji as a fake - Scott and Phillip. While I completely respect their opinions, I also respect the opinions of Wang's supporters.
How is "publicly decrying" defined as it is used here?
Often, as a publisher here in the martial world, I'm caught in between competing factions. Is it my position to judge who is right and who is wrong? Sometimes. But to be honest, I'd much rather see the opposing parties present there work in a positive light as opposed to bashing each other. If Scott and Tom truly want to raise the standards of our magazine, they should publish something with us. I'd eagerly look at their submissions.
Well, you have their contact information too. Hell, a lot of interested academic researchers in martial arts would probably like to submit work. But when they see the inaccuracies (not just minor mistakes, mind you)--well, can you blame them for not doing so?
If they are skiddish about editing, well, again, welcome to the world of publishing.
I do not think that they were "skiddish" about editing. It was the inaccuracy that was put into the article that caused "things to stir." You know this but do not say so.
FWIW, if your writing is so fragile that it can't stand a little editing, either your ego is too big or your just a crappy writer. Probably both. :p
Or the magazine has crappy editing standards. And "a little editing" is dependent upon the magazine's actions, right? There is editing grammar and punctuation (which magazines often screw up anyway), and there is editing in mistakes.
Now, if I had the resource to allocate to triple-check every story we publish, I would, but frankly, it's a struggle just to keep a niche print magazine on the newsstand nowadays.
I understand what you say here, but that is not so much the issue, right? Researching things "academically," I know that checking "factoids" is more about time than any dollar amount.
So my friends, you can bash us all you like, but it won't change the facts.
No, it won't change the fact that"popular magazines" misrepresent history. You are right.
If you want better martial arts publications, you have to do it yourself. That's what I've done, and this is as far as I've got at this point. I hope you'll join me and submit something (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/about/guidelines.php) - put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.
No one is trying to bash you--how can anyone do that over the Internet, eh? I mean, I could do so with my antique chui, but that would be murder. And why would I even want to do that?

Be careful, Gene--you might just find yourself flooded with academic articles. If you are asking for help, you may get it. Or the opposite may happen.

GeneChing

06-15-2005, 08:22 PM

Let's take this from the top again because we're getting muddled by your perspective on what 'truth' is. First of all, history is a sticky topic, even stickier when it comes to the antiques market. You are presenting your opinions against Wang Sheng Ji as truth, which is your perogative. My point in all of this is that there are competing truths in martial arts, and that certainly crosses over into the realm of antiques. You're from Scott Rodell's and Philip Tom's camp. I respect that. Know that there are critics of their work too. There are claims that Rodell's and Tom's work is too clean - too linearly organized - to be factual. Chinese culture seldom fits into the neat catagories that Rodell and Tom have presented. Personally, I think that's ridiculous - even if they are making up their own catagorizations, at least some one is trying to catagorize this stuff, but I understand where the criticism is coming from. And they're still wrong about the pinyin for Bian, but that's such a minor error. We tried to cover for them on it, like we do for all our contributors. If they hadn't raised the point, no one would have even seen it. It's rather a shame that they had to do so, because if you just check your Chinese dictionary, you'll find we're right, and that point, although not truly relevent to the rest of their arguement, does weaken it by proximity.

Now, like I've already said on this thread, I have great respect for both Scott and Phillip's work. I invited them to participate in the Sword special - something I don't do for very many authors at all, but this was a special case. In the case of Scott, I bought a sword from him years ago. I think his old xerographic catalogs were great. I told him many times that he should compile all that stuff into a book. I also tried to help get his products marketed through MartialArtsMart (http://www.martialartsmart.com) since they are all vanity published, and we try to support the small vanity publishers in martial arts as a grass-roots promotion of the martial arts. Unfortunately, our company has minimums for outside vendors and his price points were too high for our market, so it didn't work out. But, I even went to the effort of writing a review of his book - that was on my own time and I don't do that for very many people - because I support his work. As for Phillip, we exchanged some emails when the article was coming together. I enjoyed his Met article immensily. It's really unfortunate how disappointed they were in final presentation of the article - the only complaint that was voiced to me about their article specifically was the pinyin change, and we stand behind our correction there. Their criticism of the other content was my main point of contention. I don't wish to belittle their work or their reputation at all - quite the opposite - but when they attack the magazine, it's my responsibility to defend it.

Their main criticism is levelled at Wang Sheng Ji. Wang is quite noted as a sword dealer and authority in the Taiwan. He's published, has run his own store for years, is featured in Taiwan Wulin (one of the world's leading martial arts magazines at this time) and has headed large antique weapon exhibitions. Is he a fraud like Phillip and Scott claim? Others don't seem to think so. At this point, it would be irresposible for us NOT to cover him, since he's creating quite a stir in the Taiwan circles. If some day, Phillip and Scott can debunk his claims and expose him as a fraud internationally, then things will change. But at this point, I'm not sure that Wang even cares about Phillip or Scott. They aren't affecting his work in the least.

More than anything else, as a publisher, I must respect the debate. In American, it's about freedom of speech here until some one can prove beyond a shadow of a did-michael-jackson-commit-statuatory doubt that some one is fake. My guiding motto comes from Voltaire - “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Such is the priviledge of any American publisher and I'll stand behind that as a born and bred American. If you say I shouldn't publish something because you say it's not true, I say back to you bring me your truth. In the absence of your submission, there's really nothing for us to talk about. You're not even in the game.

Now I have tried very hard to promote truth in Chinese weapons - arguably harder than anyone in the newsstands - so I find it very discouraging to get such backlash for my work. But then again, I've been in the sword business for nearly two decades and I know how prissy sword people can be, myself included, so I should have expected this. I think it's because no matter how good we might be, we never really get to cut anyone. ;) I've worked rather hard to develop the featured weapon platform - it's basically a free full-page color ad for any weapon dealer. That's a $1000 value. I'm disappointed that only Wang Sheng Ji has been smart enough to take advantage of it. If Scott or Tom, or anyone, wants to show something, they should contact me. I'm even interested in your antiques - if you want to show them. All you have to do is send me the high res images and the description - gene@kungfumagazine.com. If you guys really want to put an end to Wang's domination of our featured weapon spots, this is the way to do it. We're not asking for help. We're just asking you to put your money where you mouth is. You can talk all the smack you want to here, but I'm still waiting to see you throw down somethinge better. To quote Skoop Nisker, "if you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own".

I would welcome a flood of academic articles, because for one thing, I'm academically trained, but frankly, the martial arts frowned upon in academic circles. Only a few scholars are doing any work in martial arts. It is pretty common practice among academics not to publish in pop magazines.

So we, the readership, shoud question everything in the magazine because academic standards are too high, yes? that is ridiculous. You, as an intelligent human, should QUESTION EVERYTHING SINGLE THING YOU READ, not just in our magazine, not just on the forum, not just what I say or Scott says or Phillip says or Wang says. QUESTION EVERYTHING. It's ridiculous not to do so.

BTW, I'm really enjoying our discussion here. Seriously, you have some great comments and it's nice to be able to respond publicly so (you don't see that at the other magazines, do ya?) However, I'll be doing some travel over the next few days so I might not be able to get back to you're next post in a timely fashion. I'm not ignoring you - If I wanted to do that, I'd just delete and ban you. I'm just away from my computer.

Doug

06-16-2005, 12:39 PM

Let's take this from the top again because we're getting muddled by your perspective on what 'truth' is.
Actually, "we" are muddled by "your" version of truth, which is almost Aristotelian in the sense that "truth" can change based on the evidence. However, you have shown none. There is no attempt on your part to even fulfill this function.

Do you really think that people read your magazine (I state that becasue it is no longer "mine" in any way) and think, "Hey, this is a popular magazine, so I don't have to take it too seriously"? A LOT of people read the magazine and take it as truth. Yet you feel no responsibility in the process of presenting information as you do. If you do not understand the implications of this, there is nothing more to say.
You are presenting your opinions against Wang Sheng Ji as truth, which is your perogative.
Actually, no, I am not. I never said that. ALthough he may be the person supplying the "wepon," I am referring to the weapon, not him. But nice try at trying to construct the aim of my comments. Well, I leid: it really isn't a nice try. It's dirty.
There are claims that Rodell's and Tom's work is too clean - too linearly organized - to be factual. Chinese culture seldom fits into the neat catagories that Rodell and Tom have presented.[B]
Hmmm. You seem pretty open about going into detail about "what is wrong" with "their" efforts but say nothing about Wang Sheng Ji. That is curious, isn't it?
[QUOTE][B]And they're still wrong about the pinyin for Bian, but that's such a minor error./
Opinion and all.
[QUOTE][B]We tried to cover for them on it, like we do for all our contributors. If they hadn't raised the point, no one would have even seen it. It's rather a shame that they had to do so, because if you just check your Chinese dictionary, you'll find we're right, and that point, although not truly relevent to the rest of their arguement, does weaken it by proximity.
Uh, yeah, I am sure it is just a silly, little mistake like you try to frame it. Sure. You know, you could go on Sword Forum and make your case if you are serious.
[B]Now, like I've already said on this thread, I have great respect for both Scott and Phillip's work.
So you say, yes.
I invited them to participate in the Sword special - something I don't do for very many authors at all, but this was a special case.
You say this like you did them a favor, whereas they added so much more credit to that issue than any other author (in terms of historical "talk" about weapons). As a reader of that issue, their appearance in your magazine made the sale; not anything else stood out quite as much.
In the case of Scott, I bought a sword from him years ago. I think his old xerographic catalogs were great. I told him many times that he should compile all that stuff into a book.
O.K. Of course, you know that more would need to be done than merely "compile it" to reach any kind of standard like, for instance, Oakeshott's Records of the Medieval Sword.
I also tried to help get his products marketed through MartialArtsMart (http://www.martialartsmart.com) since they are all vanity published, and we try to support the small vanity publishers in martial arts as a grass-roots promotion of the martial arts. Unfortunately, our company has minimums for outside vendors and his price points were too high for our market, so it didn't work out.
Again, I question your ethics for publicizing private issues.

Selling his stuff would benefit you quite well, yes? Historical pieces alongside crappy wushu and "combat steel" pieces. It would only add credit to the magzine. But isn't the thought of it ever happening kind of funny?
But, I even went to the effort of writing a review of his book - that was on my own time and I don't do that for very many people - because I support his work.
Uh, want a pat on your back? No offense, but other people have also written reivews during thier busy schedules, all credible sources within the martial community and academic community.
As for Phillip, we exchanged some emails when the article was coming together. I enjoyed his Met article immensily. It's really unfortunate how disappointed they were in final presentation of the article - the only complaint that was voiced to me about their article specifically was the pinyin change, and we stand behind our correction there. Their criticism of the other content was my main point of contention.
"Unfortunate?"

What "other content"?
I don't wish to belittle their work or their reputation at all - quite the opposite - but when they attack the magazine, it's my responsibility to defend it.
Well, you sure are doing a good job at that--far from actually responding to them specifically. You are arguing wiht me, not them. So far, I am the only person "from that camp" to comment here.
Their main criticism is levelled at Wang Sheng Ji. [...] Is he a fraud like Phillip and Scott claim? Others don't seem to think so. At this point, it would be irresposible for us NOT to cover him, since he's creating quite a stir in the Taiwan circles.
But it is not irresponsible to hold you responsible for not checking the accuracy of your sources? Contradictions are interesting when 'we" realize them.
If some day, Phillip and Scott can debunk his claims and expose him as a fraud internationally, then things will change. But at this point, I'm not sure that Wang even cares about Phillip or Scott. They aren't affecting his work in the least.
So you boldly say. Yet you are affecting his work. And your lack of honest standards in publishing is affecting the magazine that I once respected. Expect to be affected by more than me.
More than anything else, as a publisher, I must respect the debate.
"Respect the debate"--unless it's academic. Popular debate--now, that is something. Presidential debates fit the "popular" profile, and look how they 1) serve to disenchant the people and 2) promote the truth.
If you say I shouldn't publish something because you say it's not true, I say back to you bring me your truth.
I say raise your standards, Gene. Raise your standards. You don't need to incorporate the endnotes and works cited into your magazine (perhaps you think it would scare people away--perhaps not), but put better efforts into exposing your own stories and exposes as historically accurate or not.
In the absence of your submission, there's really nothing for us to talk about. You're not even in the game.
Uh, yes, there is plenty to talk about. You don't check the accuracy of what you put in your magazine. I can comment on it. I am commenting on it. I am calling you out.

Maybe you think that you are "in the game" by publishing lies. That just makes you a collaborator of misrepresentation.
Now I have tried very hard to promote truth in Chinese weapons - arguably harder than anyone in the newsstands - so I find it very discouraging to get such backlash for my work.
Were you "trying very hard to promote Chinese weapons"in the issue with the article about "100 Chinese weapons," promoting innacuracies along the way and showcasing these weapons with their wushu representations?

Dictators think they're doing good work too--often, they are not. You are not a dictator, but I am sure objective criticism does negatively affect you. If that is the case, you could, perhaps, investigate the cause of the criticism before blowing it off and see if there is anything that can be done to correct it.
But then again, I've been in the sword business for nearly two decades and I know how prissy sword people can be, myself included, so I should have expected this.
Once more (for the last time), I am charging your standards of accuracy, not anything else. The attempt to turn it into a "prissy sword people" argument is a funny attempt to turn the attention away from the magazine though.

And you did not think at least one person would say something about accuracy in your standards? You should have more faith in your readership. Not everyone who reads the magazine is so trapped in the "popular" sense of the magazine.

Doug

06-16-2005, 12:40 PM

I think it's because no matter how good we might be, we never really get to cut anyone. ;)
Well, this argument is due to what I question to be a substandard attempt to catch mistakes or "lies passed off as truth" in the magazine--what I have seen for some time. I actually don't care to cut anyone. Hey, I can target practice on my own with my dao.

But you have made your point known--you are a "popular magazine." I will treat this publication as such--as will plenty of others.
I've worked rather hard to develop the featured weapon platform - it's basically a free full-page color ad for any weapon dealer. That's a $1000 value. I'm disappointed that only Wang Sheng Ji has been smart enough to take advantage of it. If Scott or Tom, or anyone, wants to show something, they should contact me.
You can contact them if you are so inclined. Since the burden of diversity is on you (as an editor who would benefit quite a bit from such diversity), this would be a better call to make than wait for the call to arrive.

Since they have experienced the results of publishing in your magazine, you know very well what will happen by waiting.
I'm even interested in your antiques - if you want to show them. All you have to do is send me the high res images and the description - gene@kungfumagazine.com.
Nope. I've "published" them online for the people who would actually care about them. I need not put it in our magazine.
If you guys really want to put an end to Wang's domination of our featured weapon spots, this is the way to do it.
What is this "you guys" business? You're addressing me (unless you think I am multiple people). If you want to talk to "the guys," you know how to contact them.
We're not asking for help.
And that is exactly the problem. You know what you are doing with what you publish. Yet you do not think it necessary to verify what actually is published. And that is the problem.
We're just asking you to put your money where you mouth is.
First of all, I am pretty sure I will not be putting anymore money into this magazine unitl standards are raised. Second, I do not feel like donating my antiques to your magazine (photowise) so that your magazine will make money from it. I mean, you say that you are "not asking for help" but really are dependent upon it for improving the magazine. But you are not interested in improving the magazine but, rahter, maintaining it. I understand, but blatantly claiming that you do not need help says a lot about your motivations and intentions.
You can talk all the smack you want to here, but I'm still waiting to see you throw down somethinge better.
Uh, I have on several occasions. Just because it does not appear in your magazine does not mean it does not exist. There is a world outside your magazine, you know. What I am "waiting to see you throw down" is a better reason thatn you have offered as to why you choose to treat your own articles and readers to such questionable standards.

And it is funny how you see this as "smack" when it is, at its core, a concern for the standards that your magazine should hold iteslf to--becasue plenty of people who read it expect each issue to check its facts and figures prior to printing. As you say, you make mistakes and admit them later. But the problems that I am addressing are beyond those. I think you know that.
To quote Skoop Nisker, "if you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own".
And to quote Homer Simpson, "I'll bash you good!" Hey, I am jut taking your lead from the previous reply.

Seriously, Marshall McLuhan stated, "Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private manipulations of those who would try to benefit from taking a lease on our eyes and ears and nerves, we really don't have any rights left" (Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man 68). You know very well that your readers "surrender" their "senses" to what you put in print and expect that the "lease" on thier "eyes," "ears," and "nerves" are not to thier disadvantage but to their benefit becasue they believe they can trust what you put in print. If you cannot take responsibility for the "lease" you take, the trust that existed is, thus, violated.
I would welcome a flood of academic articles, because for one thing, I'm academically trained, but frankly, the martial arts frowned upon in academic circles. Only a few scholars are doing any work in martial arts. It is pretty common practice among academics not to publish in pop magazines.
You are acadmeically trained? Really? Where? I mean, a child in at home can be trained academically. I am curious as to the absence of any named institution.

Actually, I strongly disagree. "The martial arts" smiles at academic research (honest martial arts, that is), and the idea that academic circles frown upon martial arts is a mythology that can only be perpetuated if what was once very true still existed in full force. Academic circles embrace martial arts as do the sciences.

Is this the source of your academic standards hate? Ha, ha, ha. I'm just bashing you with my historic keyboard, Gene.
You, as an intelligent human, should QUESTION EVERYTHING SINGLE THING YOU READ, not just in our magazine, not just on the forum, not just what I say or Scott says or Phillip says or Wang says. QUESTION EVERYTHING. It's ridiculous not to do so.
Well, you caught my textual blunder. I meant to apply this standard to what seems to be one of the better points about your magazine--personal interviews and reporting about events. It should be obvious that I would not only question your magazine. However, I made a mistake. Oops.

Yet I cannot help but wonder what would happen if you would apply this same standard that you advocate toward your magazine. You make it very clear that you are unwilling to better the standards of the magazine, which contradicts your statment above. As you say, to avoid this responsibility is "ridiculous."
BTW, I'm really enjoying our discussion here. Seriously, you have some great comments and it's nice to be able to respond publicly so (you don't see that at the other magazines, do ya?)
To be fair, this is not the magazine. This is an online discussion board. Unless, of course, you consider yourself the magazine, which would explain a few things. BASH! POW! ZOMPH!
However, I'll be doing some travel over the next few days so I might not be able to get back to you're next post in a timely fashion. I'm not ignoring you - If I wanted to do that, I'd just delete and ban you. I'm just away from my computer.
Ah, the fleeting feeling of power. Enjoy it while you can, man. Because when it flees, it's, like, gone. Zoom!

That would be funny--banning me--when one looks at the utter nonsense that is allowed to go on at this site's discussion boards. Quite frankly, that would not mean much, particularly in an environment that has lowered expectations for standards. If you look at some of my posts, I have tried to advocate a better, critical approach to some issues here, particularly weapons. Not surprisingly, members here do not care much for it because it interrupts the cycle of lies that are perpetuated among such groups.

As far as deleting goes--well, you could do that too. There would be no harm in that. I have copies of this stuff, so "copy and paste" or step and repeat (in my day) is not so much a problem.

But, of course, to take these actions, you would ethically have to clean up the discussion boards at the same time. As you can notice, "smack" in the form of criticism and "smack" in the form of true trash talk are quite different.

I do hope you take my comments seriously and, one day, change how you present material. This has nothing to do with money but plenty to do with dedication to honesty.

Doug M

BM2

06-16-2005, 03:58 PM

[QUOTE=GeneChing] You're from Scott Rodell's and Philip Tom's camp.

Actually the term is nutridder. ;)

ThomasYuan

06-16-2005, 04:13 PM

Gene, gotta hand it to you...you know how to talk like a professional...hiding daggers within smiles. That's cool. Very cool. It looks very nice...nice and flowery, just like the wushu myth so often promoted by this magazine. Indeed, you can embody the true spirit of your magazine.

Surely, neither of you two mind if I decide to shoot a few holes in the article of question in front of you while you...exchange pleasant words?

At Swordforum, it is absolutely apalling to all of us how many errors that this article was loaded with.
First off...there is no such thing as a "Wei Jia Broadsword". THERE IS however, something known as a "Dao". A single edged bladed weapon, or better translated, a saber. Did you mean "Qi Jia Dao" as the name of your weapon (It's the name of the actual form, not weapon. That'd be like saying "Tai Ji Jian", of which there is no such thing)? At SFI, we noticed that the character "Qi", as in "Qi Jiguang", the famed General of the Ming Dynasty, was quite similar to the character "Wei", as in "Wei Feng", meaning "Mighty".
The Dao carried by the coastal armies were not termed "Wei Jia Dao". Unless of course, you can find me a historical source that says otherwise.
I also find it charming how you so matter of factly deemed the blades of we the Chinese (you and me Ching, I believe we're both of Chinese descent) as inferior. This is far too general. There are good Chinese blades, crappy Chinese blades, and good Japanese blades, and crappy ones too. Please do not judge any Chinese blade by wushu junk on sale at MartialArtsMart.com.
Never forget...the Japanese Katana is not much different from a Chinese Dao. Both were made with similar methods, and the Japanese learned all their sword forging techniques from the Chinese and Koreans (who learned it from the Chinese).
Certainly, perhaps the quality of Chinese blades did fluctuate over time, depending on how strict the regulations were. But did Japanese blades not suffer from these too?
That is a completely FALSE statement, that Chinese blades were inferior to Japanese blades.
There were indeed many imports of Japanese blades as works of art, but no Chinese empire has ever relied on any other kingdom to arm its troops. The Chinese government didn't arm its soldiers with Katana. Never. Why arm them with 'Japanese Blades fashioned in the Chinese Design' when they could arm their soldiers with a 'Chinese Blade Fashioned in the Chinese Design' for less? There wouldn't be much difference in how good the sword was.
The Myth that Chinese blades were historically inferior to Japanese blades cannot be taken as the rule.
Qi Jiguang the General- I find it a bit awkward to call him master did not develop a sword art meant for a "Wei Jia Broadsword". He designed his art to be used with a particularly long Dao by the name of "Chang Dao", modern day termed "Miao Dao". It would make no difference how much that the blade resembled 'Japanese Design' (surprise surprise, their blade geometry and design came from China).
And what exactly would make you say its "Clearly a Japanese Blade in Make and Style"? The curvature? The Blade Geometry? Because neither of these are particularly unique to Japan.
I'm certain however, that our friend Gene Ching was knowledged enough in Chinese Blades not to be the writer of those mistakes. Probably was just the guy John Oh spewing a bunch of urban myth, which is widely believed by the public anyways thanks to popular publications.

Gene, you have to understand. Not everyone out there knows as much as say, a person from SFI. They read the magazine because they think that it would be responsible enough to include only facts. They take anything said in this magazine as gospel- including any myths you published. And likely, they won't easily find a factual source to prove them wrong, since these myths are already so widely circulated that even an internet search will turn up five full pages of them.

Therefore, YOU, as the editor, must be responsible and intelligent enough to identify and strike down any myth propagated by the articles within the magazine.
You may be too late to stop the myth at the source. Yet, if you show everyone how very wrong that some of these notions are, they will unquestioningly believe too-is this not a good thing? You are some people's only source of information. What you, Kung Fu Magazine, say, is law for many people.

As editor, you're supposed to make money, yes. But shouldn't you EARN your money by making everything you write in your magazine correct? That's what you're here for, right? Is it not too much to simply cut out the line "Chinese blades were inferior to Japanese blades"? It's not getting academic. It's the level below- getting the facts straight. You're not a tabloid, you shouldn't make money by deceiving people with a curtain of widely believed lies.

People read this, even as a popular magazine, in the hopes that they will learn something. Even if you write myth into your magazine, they will believe it, along with any fact. If you write "Chinese blades were inferior to Japanese blades", they will walk away from the magazine saying "Oh cool, I learned something new today."
If you write, "Chinese blades were quite formidable, as much as their counterparts in Japan", they will also walk away saying "Guess what, I learned something new today."
It will not hurt your pocket to put on a correct fact in place of myth...and it will benefit the readers.
I must say however- it WILL hurt your pocket to spout myths in front of educated readers, who don't follow blindly like cattle. If they read something so preposterous, they may choose to stop buying, rather than continue to read something so polluted with misinformation and support its propogation.
No one will leave you because you do not repeat their favorite fairy tales. If you make alot of articles debunking urban myth, indeed, it will only increase their interest in your magazine, and boost your reputation as a truthful magazine, even if you do not go into research as heavy as needed for an academic article.
Things as small as writing articles saying "Contrary to public belief, Chinese swords were not inferior to Japanese swords", or saying, "All martial arts did not trace back to Shaolin" are enough to interest your readers and boost your reputation.

If you have no other reason to simply correct this kind of nonsense on the inferiority of Chinese Swords, remember...there's not a bunch of people to prove this stuff wrong for you. Meaning, noone will bother to show the world the truth, unless it starts with you...never forget, if you spread this sort of myth, on the abysmal quality of Chinese swords, you, a Chinese, are helping to destroy your own heritage. You know, I've seen Chinese out there who actually believe your nonsense on Chinese Sword quality, and are beggining to repeat it like Parrots. It's not 'Oh Well' anymore. You are making a big impact..I'm sure you know, but you still do not correct anything. You really really leave some Chinese without a sword culture to be proud of. Many Chinese because of this Magazine do not know of China's rich martial heritage, powerful armies, and formidable weapons of war in the way they should truly be thought in...Chinese should know that their martial culture and history is one to be proud of, not one inferior to the Japanese in any way, even in terms of weapons.

I know. You are probably the kind of person who'd go "Your opinion doesn't matter. You're just 14." But I'd just love to remind you, that I pay as much as any of your "valued customers". Indeed, I probably pay a greater percent of my income for one of your magazines than most of your other customers. But my opinion does matter too. And even I, a 14 year old, can see how badly the system works. You do not care about benefitting your readers. You care about making more money first. And then, maybe if the editors feel like it, drop in something that's semi true amongst all the myth and lies.
And even if you're going to brush me off on basis of age- I can speak as loudly as any of your other customers, no matter the age. I will stop buying your magazine from the news stands, unless you strive for a higher standard and discontinue polluting your magazine with misinformation. You may fool a regular Joe, but you can't fool someone who's actually educated by sources other than your magazine.
I think that many on SFI are willing to do the same thing too, and stop buying your magazine or cancel their subscriptions.

Thanks.

BM2

06-16-2005, 07:33 PM

Well, well,well, Thomas. I wish at 44 years of age to be able to convey my thoughts as well as you do at 14.
Maybe you or Doug recall a post made by Scott a couple of years or so ago on SFI. He had purchased a dao, I believe, from China and had planned to have it polished. When he had the handle removed he found out it was a new dao. The sword makers had rose to a new level of faking an old blade. Having handled personally thousands of antique swords, according to him, he still was duped. Hopefully this was the first time and that no one has paid hundreds or more for a modern copy from him that he was duped into buying. The Pole that posted on SFI stopped buying swords in China because he had bought copies and couldn't always tell the difference. My point is that even experts can make mistakes and there will always be disagreement on opinions. What do you want Gene to do? Stop putting blades in the mag all together so that no one be offended?
I posted earlier in this thread about the opera props that Scott sold to me as being a rare set of jians designed for prescion cuts and slices. I did this to show even he makes mistakes. Had they been printed in Kung Fu mag would you come on here and slam Gene as much as you are doing to him now, demanding he shape up or you're cancelling your Kung fu mag subscription? Maybe? ;)

Judge Pen

06-16-2005, 08:02 PM

14? You have been educated very well.

GeneChing

06-16-2005, 08:31 PM

Soon all the sword forum people will be here - all part of my master plan! bwahahaha!

Ok, seriously, I don't mean to bait you as much as I am but it's just reflex - I worked full-time as a swordmaker for over half a decade. Perhaps that has built up some resentment towards sword people in general. Plus I always conceal daggers in smiles - :) - It's part of the 36 strategies, eh? I love that work.

For the sake of fun, I'll adopt Doug's cut-and-paster troll strategy on you Thomas. It has nothing to do with your age; it's just for the experiment.

First off...there is no such thing as a "Wei Jia Broadsword". THERE IS however, something known as a "Dao". A single edged bladed weapon, or better translated, a saber. Did you mean "Qi Jia Dao" as the name of your weapon (It's the name of the actual form, not weapon. That'd be like saying "Tai Ji Jian", of which there is no such thing)? At SFI, we noticed that the character "Qi", as in "Qi Jiguang", the famed General of the Ming Dynasty, was quite similar to the character "Wei", as in "Wei Feng", meaning "Mighty". If you know my work, you know I've railed against the translation of dao as broadsword for years. Unfortunately, the term has stuck in the general vernacular in America, mostly because of the precedence of a bad translator (Werner perhaps?) I've given up on this and made my peace with it. You need to understand that the vast bulk of CMA is folk/village oriented - not scholarly at all - so it's very common to hear tai ji jian and similar terms - so such things might not exist in the technical world of SFI, but the exist in the real world of common folk.

I also find it charming how you so matter of factly deemed the blades of we the Chinese (you and me Ching, I believe we're both of Chinese descent) as inferior. This is far too general. There are good Chinese blades, crappy Chinese blades, and good Japanese blades, and crappy ones too. Please do not judge any Chinese blade by wushu junk on sale at MartialArtsMart.com. That was actually a translation, not me. These write ups are produced by Wang, and translated by Jonathan Oh, then grammatically corrected by me. Wang tells Jonathan this stuff in interview, so it's really not his article, but it's his perspective. As for the 'wushu junk,' I'd love to carry all high-end swords but to be frank, the market is so limited. Most people just want something to practice with - they can't afford a high-end sword, nor do they have the disicpline to maintain something like that. We carried a few Hanwei's but they didn't sell very well and when they did sell, Hanwei couldn't meet our backorders.

Qi Jiguang the General- I find it a bit awkward to call him master did not develop a sword art meant for a "Wei Jia Broadsword". He designed his art to be used with a particularly long Dao by the name of "Chang Dao", modern day termed "Miao Dao". Ah, here again, the folk art aspect of CMA raises it's ugly head. Since Qi Jiguang was so venerated amongst CMA circles, there are many styles that attribute their sword method to his creation. This really gets at the nature of the whole disagrement that we are having here. The SFI group is looking at swords from an archeologic/hopologic viewpoint, and I totally respect that. CMA is more like folk tales. It's not necessarily a military or scholarly tradition - in fact the bulk of true CMA - the real kung fu, if you will - is happening and happens on the village/folk level. These village masters are not educated and present their stories, which are ridden with myth and legend. Sure, it's not 'true' in the sense that it might fly in the face of something like Qi Jiguang's written record, but that doesn't make it less valid. There is tremendous power in myth - take Campbell for instance - now, we don't publish outright 'lies' intentionally as you put it, but we do give face to the dominent paradigms while making an effort to present all sides of the story. It's baby steps, I'm afraid, but for the bulk of the newsstand readership, that's the best we can do. I challenge you to find less myths in the other newsstand magazines, and I don't say that to downgrade our competition - it more a statement about what it's like to survive on the newsstand nowadays. We're all competing with People, Cosmo, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue - it's a challenging environment for a MA mag. But back to myths - a classic example is the Tamo/Shaolin/CMA founder myth. That's been quite clearly disproven in the scholarly circles. Does this mean we shouldn't run this Tamo myth/lie? Of course not. The myth of Tamo in no way detracts from CMA, just like the myth of say, Noah's Ark, in no way detracts from Christianity.

you, a Chinese, are helping to destroy your own heritage. Now that's just rude, Thomas. I'm sad you feel that way. You do not care about benefitting your readers. You care about making more money first. And then, maybe if the editors feel like it, drop in something that's semi true amongst all the myth and lies. Of course I care about making money, but to be frank, if it was all about money, I would have left this field long ago. Martial arts publishing isn't a gold mine, it isn't a silver mine, it's more like a salt mine. I care very much for the readership and for CMA. I've devoted my life to it. If I didn't care, do you think I'd take the time out of my day to respond to your posts here?

What you all need to realize is that SFI is one perspective and there are countless others. I know your are well versed in Chinese culture so you know the vast diversity. That bleeds into CMA.

My parting shot is this: I love SFI. But now, they are dishonoring CMA by just talking smack. They should put up or shut up. It's a lot like the armchair fighters who watch NHB matches and say 'oh that sucks' but never step in the ring. That's not martial. If SFI wants 'more accurate' articles, they should submit more. Let the readership decide. I'd welcome an 'intelligent' submission from SFI folks, even from a 14-year-old. So, are you ready to get in the ring?

BM2

06-17-2005, 04:06 PM

14? You have been educated very well.

Yeah, I have to admit if the world wide web was around when I was 14, I wouldn't be surfing SFI or this site. Ok, it would have been something that started with GIIRLS GIRLS GIRLS !!!! :o :o :rolleyes: Maybe that is why my grammer prevents me from making educated posts :eek:

According to Scott, the best way to date an item is to remove the handle and guess at the age of the rust. I don't think Gene would have any problem with a centerfold blade having shown its tang :p .

Doug

06-18-2005, 06:33 AM

[QUOTE=GeneChing] You're from Scott Rodell's and Philip Tom's camp.

Actually the term is nutridder. ;)

What does this mean, BM2?

BM2

06-18-2005, 08:21 AM

Put in an extra "d" in nutrider didn't I?
Let's say that I came on here and talked about how great Tae kwon Do is compared to CMA or any other MA. Regardless of what others may post demostrating the errors of that statement, I firmly hold to the belief of Tae Kwon Do being the best MA. In fact, nothing could be said to make me change my opinion of Tae Kwon Do being the best MA 'cause its been kicking butt since cavemen painted it on the walls. I would be a TKD nutrider :eek: :eek:

As I grow older I find myself not knowing as much as I thought I did. I make mistakes and even the Pope makes mistakes. Of course some think he is infallible ;) .
Really I am just surprised at the tone over there at SFI. There are more important things to get worked up over. Nobody died or anything :D And I am certain that no animals were harmed in any way during the making of the article.
Yes, the blade seems to have lost its tip and I think the scabbard looks funny.

Doug

06-18-2005, 12:30 PM

Put in an extra "d" in nutrider didn't I?
Let's say that I came on here and talked about how great Tae kwon Do is compared to CMA or any other MA. [...] I would be a TKD nutrider :eek: :eek:
Well, this is a poor definition and totally misses the pont. So you do not care about accurately representing history as it is (in the case of weapons). That is that then.
I make mistakes and even the Pope makes mistakes. Of course some think he is infallible ;) .
The pope is dead. Long live the new nazi pope.
Really I am just surprised at the tone over there at SFI. There are more important things to get worked up over. Nobody died or anything :D
What a poor level of understanding.

What is harmed is the mindset of every reader who believes this knife is the real deal. This is not like your funny example about Tae Kwon Do being better than Chinese martial arts--that is not measurable by quantity of quality--it is measured by the abilities of the users. The weapon "thing" in question is measurable, and it was not investigated properly. That is the problem. The fact that you do not see that is a problem.

I am surprised by your lack of concern for misappropriation of historic record. You should know that changing a people's history is to change how they see themselves. A lie such as this robs truth from the people. And you accept the theft with open arms. That is sad, for there are better things to dismiss with ease as you do there.
And I am certain that no animals were harmed in any way during the making of the article.
Yes, very funny. But you don't know that, do you? And what you don't know will harm you.

Doug M

P.S.

Don't worry, Gene--I'll respond soon.

BM2

06-19-2005, 07:30 PM

[QUOTE=Doug]Well, this is a poor definition and totally misses the pont.
Well, it seems as if I didn't explain myself well enough for you to understand. I was impling that you blindly follow Scott and Phillip ( They represented Tae Kwon Do ), and that all other sword dealers and collectors ( the other martial art styles) are not as good.
I even pointed out two examples of mistakes made by scott that you ignored.
Gene posted that there are others with differing views of Chinese history.
(just as the TKD nutrider ignored examples made by other forum members in my anology) .

[QUOTE=Doug]What a poor level of understanding.

What you really mean is " Agree with me or your an idiot" ?

[QUOTE=Doug]I am surprised by your lack of concern for misappropriation of historic record. You should know that changing a people's history is to change how they see themselves. A lie such as this robs truth from the people. And you accept the theft with open arms. That is sad, for there are better things to dismiss with ease as you do there.

Have you read anything about the new Japanese history books and Japan's version of China? Now there is something to get worked up about, much more than a dao with a broken tip and a shorten scabbard in a martial art mag . It is so laughable that someone would change their opinion of themselves from a martial art mag article that I will not even debate it.

Let me try one last time. What would you have done if Gene had printed those flimsy opera jians as rare weapons made for a style that used precise cuts and thrusts? Wouldn't it have been better to print a letter with an opposing view?

Didn't you get an dao from Scott that you enjoy? You can take Gene up on his challenge for submissions to the mag and submit it. Wouldn't that be cool to see it?

GeneChing

06-20-2005, 10:08 PM

I just returned from the trip that I mentioned earlier. It was a spiritual retreat, of sorts, so it gave me sometime to reflect on - among a lot of other things - this thread.

First of all, let me apologize from my adversarial responses. As I mentioned earlier, things were rather stressful here at the magazine (I'm still working on our paper problem) and I have this weird knee-jerk reaction to sword people that is the direct result of earning a living as a full-time swordmaker for a stint. It's a personality quirk, what can I say? I do encourage any comments and criticism of my work - in fact, that's one of th primary functions of this particular forum - and I'm pleased that you would take the time to comment at all. I'm pleased that you care. Besides, what good would a forum be if you can't troll the administrator?

That being said, let's re-frame this discussion. I hear your concern about inaccuracies in the magazine and that's a constant problem in publishing. At least swords are not as touchy as say, torturing Guantanamo prisoners by smearing them with mentrual blood and flushing the Koran. But I fully appreciate your love of swords. I share that love. If I didn't love swords, that sword special and the featured weapon section wouldn't even exist. Not only would it not exist in our magazine, it would not exist anywhere. Think about that.

Now, we all want to see the very best examples of Chinese weapons displayed in our magazine. If you really care about this too, you can help me by tracking down some more to display. I'm just one man. I would welcome your input, as well as the members of SFI. We can work together at this. Not only will everyone benefit, we will be able to educate more people about Chinese weapons.

Let me know what you think - you know where to find me. :cool:

grlyncher99

06-30-2005, 01:25 AM

It is just him. I've been to the offices and there aren't a lot of people there.

Granted, I'm biased. I've been a FOG for a long time but the thing I like best about this discussion is Gene asks you to prove your points, state your facts and your respond by attacking his character. How is that any way to debate?

Why don't you send article defend your positions? If you look at the number of people reading this thread, it's not a lot. However, if you were to write an article stating your positions with back up material you'd reach a lot more people. You would open up the debate to something more than a he-said/she-said forum squabble.

That's what it means to get in the ring. Write down your material. Submit it. See if it stands the test of editorial scrutiny. The thing about forums, everything you write goes up on the air without anybody checking it's validity.

Good Luck. Keep fighting. No blows below the belt. Reasonable men should have reasonable discussion.

CMA Fables vs. academic research I think of the quote (you guys are always quoting so I didn't want to be left out) from "The Man who Shot Liberty Valanc" "This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" Just a thought.

Lastly, can we agree the word is "skittish" not "skiddish"

grlyncher99

06-30-2005, 01:37 AM

I went to the Sword forum and I found this post. What happened Doug?

The Latest Issue of Kung Fu Tai Chi Magazine...Get It!

Hey Everyone,

The most recent issue of Kung Fu Tai Chi Magazine is really, really good. Scott and Philip's article (or should I say Philip and Scott's article?) is very good. I like this particular magazine, but it is rare to read an issue from it that is as good as this one. I mean it--get it when you have a chance. Buy two, and get one signed by Scott and Philip when you see them. Great stuff. Finally, REAL swords are in that magazine.

In addition, the other articles are good as well. Adam Hsu has one. The whole issue is basically all about swords. HeLLO? Can anyone say, "Chinese sword forum readers--buy it"? There is even an article about drawing the sword. I was very surprised to see this in this particular publication. Whatever one may think about the content of any article in this issue, the fact that such issues are being addressed is remarkable on its own.

However, buy it for our moderators' efforts to get the word out about authentic swords and knives. It is worth it.

Thanks, Scott and Philip, for taking the time to go through any hassles to spread this information.

Doug M

SimonM

06-30-2005, 08:43 AM

Hi Doug.

I am very familliar with academia. I recently graduated from University and while I was there I spent MORE time than average for my class rooting through journals. Though I was too lazy to get it published I even wrote one article that a prof of mine was encouraging me to have published in a Sociology journal.

The thing is that even in University a lot of people just can't understand academic writing. When I was in third year I did a course on Shakespaere. There was an article on Henry V written by a Marxist which was incredibly academic.

It so happened that my group was assigned this article for group work presentations. I was the only one who could comprehend a word of what the author said! This was because I was a sociology major and was familliar with Marxist discourse. I had to spend a half an hour explaining the special terminology to the brightest member of the group and then she spent an entire evening explaining it to the rest of the group.

Even then the 'dead weight' member of the group couldn't grasp what the article was going on about. This was an upper-year undergraduate course. People who reach that level of academia at all are above average intelligence.

Properly done academic work is heavily annotated, it includes citations and it is frequently written in language byzantine to the point of jargonism.

Academic journals are regularly funded by an outside source but magazines have to answer to their bottom line. So magazines cannot afford to alienate readers with articles that are incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already highly educated.

Let's face it the average person is not very bright. Now along with the vicissitudes of academic writing a few other things have to go. Magazines operate on a much stricter deadline than academia. It may be "publish or perish but with the peer review system I don't think I know a single prof who woudn't wait one more issue to make sure their facts are in order. It's a bit different in a magazine setting. They can't afford to spend extra weeks tracking down sources and verifying information. So inaccuracies occur. It's this way with most magazines. At least KFM is better than average.

That is why I read it as opposed to IKF or BB magazine. If you are not satisfied with the quality of the authorship in KFM don't read it. You won't be banished to the outer darkness for cancelling one subscription. But I will point out: you will have a hard time finding anything better about martial arts in periodical print.

Doug

06-30-2005, 11:49 AM

Granted, I'm biased. I've been a FOG for a long time
What is a FOG?
but the thing I like best about this discussion is Gene asks you to prove your points, state your facts and your respond by attacking his character. How is that any way to debate?
Please take the time to correct yourself. Go back to the origins of this thread, read how things progressed, and think about what you claim here.
Why don't you send article defend your positions?
Why not refer to my previous post on the matter?
If you look at the number of people reading this thread, it's not a lot. However, if you were to write an article stating your positions with back up material you'd reach a lot more people. You would open up the debate to something more than a he-said/she-said forum squabble.
Not really.
That's what it means to get in the ring. Write down your material. Submit it. See if it stands the test of editorial scrutiny. The thing about forums, everything you write goes up on the air without anybody checking it's validity.
Well, these metaphors are very convenient, but I stand by what I stated earlier about putting anything in the magazine. Perhaps you think this magazine is the place to employ my efforts, but that is just your opinion.

And check your last sentence here. You are incorrect. Check out Sword Forum. Facts are checked constantly. You must be referring to the multiple discussion boards here, where insults and fights break out all the time.
Reasonable men should have reasonable discussion.
Uh, everything I have stated is reasonable. I would like you to point out something I brought up that is not.

Doug

06-30-2005, 11:55 AM

I went to the Sword forum and I found this post. What happened Doug?
I wonder what your motives are, sir.

As you can tell, the majority of this endorsement is for the article in question in this thread. I do state that the existence of the magazine is a good sign in itself. And that is true.

Nothing I have said contradicts my previous statements. Again, I wonder why you are bothering with this. It must have something to do with "[r]easonable men should have reasonable discussion." Seriously, this is off topic. Just stick to the thread's purpose.

Doug

06-30-2005, 12:41 PM

Hi Doug.
Hi, Simon. How are you?
I am very familliar with academia.
In what way are you "very familiar" with it? That is an interpretation after all. But I am just curious.
I recently graduated from University and while I was there I spent MORE time than average for my class rooting through journals. Though I was too lazy to get it published I even wrote one article that a prof of mine was encouraging me to have published in a Sociology journal.
Hey, great. What is the article on?
The thing is that even in University a lot of people just can't understand academic writing.
Which is why I believe I stated that I would not expect Kung Fu/Tai Chi Magazine to turn Journal of Asian Martial Arts on its readership. That would be unreasonable. I have said, again and again, that better standards are in order. That is it. Given taht you are "very familiar" with academic writing and research, you know that it is more the effort than the money that is at stake. And that is not a cheap shot at anybody--that is just the way it is.
Even then the 'dead weight' member of the group couldn't grasp what the article was going on about. This was an upper-year undergraduate course. People who reach that level of academia at all are above average intelligence.
Well, that may reflect the university you went to. Not everyone at the junior or senior level in college is as well read or able to analyze complex reading in the same way. The standards are different for the various fields. So even though students in college should be of a higher level of learning, that is definitely not the case every time.
Properly done academic work is heavily annotated, it includes citations and it is frequently written in language byzantine to the point of jargonism.
It depends on the field, right? The sciences are certainly along these lines in terms of the writing, and writing by people such as George Gophen would be helpful. But this description is not an equal for all levels of academic writing.

But I am not even arguing this point here, so it is off the topic.
Academic journals are regularly funded by an outside source but magazines have to answer to their bottom line. So magazines cannot afford to alienate readers with articles that are incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already highly educated.
Again, that is the reason why I never stated that this magazine should go that route.
Let's face it the average person is not very bright./
I highly disagree with that. People are complex and think in ways that vary in complexity, but I would rather not group people into a "they don't know much for their own good" category. If that notion is taken seriously, then the path to what Edward Bernays called "the manufacture of consent"--deciding what to do for the average person who is too stupid to know what to do and, therefore, must be made to believe that "our" way is better--is all too easy to follow.
[B]Magazines operate on a much stricter deadline than academia. It may be "publish or perish but with the peer review system I don't think I know a single prof who woudn't wait one more issue to make sure their facts are in order.
Well, you are one person. Although you know professors from your "home university," that represents how many professors the world over?
[B]It's a bit different in a magazine setting. They can't afford to spend extra weeks tracking down sources and verifying information. So inaccuracies occur. It's this way with most magazines. At least KFM is better than average.
Well, you should qualify "better than average" by "I believe it is." Given that this magazine interviews top martial artists and martial scholars, it is a shame not to take advantage of the opportunity to utilize better standards of quality editing. Again, that is not a cheap shot but an observation.
If you are not satisfied with the quality of the authorship in KFM don't read it.
Thanks for your permission, but I have made myself clear in previous posts. I have been waiting to reply to Gene, but I have been waiting for the right time to do it.
You won't be banished to the outer darkness for cancelling one subscription.
What does that mean? I mean, I am not worried about being banned or "banished" or seen as someone who just wants to start trouble--just like those labor agitators who wanted better wages and working conditions, eh? I am such a troublemaker!

And I never subscribed to the magazine.
But I will point out: you will have a hard time finding anything better about martial arts in periodical print.
Uh, let us see: Journal of Asian Martial Arts, Classical Fighting Arts...thta is at least two journals that use academic research in their articles. Of course, this particular magazine that Gene helps run is good when compared to Black Belt Magazine or Inside Kung Fu. I am sure that Gene tries to have more content than advertising (just look at the two previous magazines in terms of articles versus advertisements). Now, look: I'm taking stuff I wanted to post to Gene and putting it here. Geez.

But that is also an interpretation about the magazine being (what seems to be described as) the best "martial arts [[ublication] in periodical print." I like the interviews, not the weapon representations that look like they arrived straight from eBay.

But are you saying that I am just making a lot of noise--that this is all just a waste of time because everything is fine the way it is? Well, I disagree if that is the case. Had the issues raised at the Sword Forum link been addressed, there would not be all of these posts. I am here on behalf of myself, not Sword Forum or anyone else, pointing out things that I have been concerned about for some time. It is easy to get caught up in discussion and argumentation (in all its forms), and it sometimes sends the wrong message from the original one intended. Oh, well. It's all online now. Just take the recommendation for what it is: a recommendation. Gene does not have to consider it if he does not want to.

But I think you should pursue that article if you still have the energy for it. Good luck with that.

Doug M

Doug

06-30-2005, 01:01 PM

Well, it seems as if I didn't explain myself well enough for you to understand.
Just to clear some things up...

Well, maybe not. It is pretty easy to miscommunicate on the Internet.
I was impling that you blindly follow Scott and Phillip ( They represented Tae Kwon Do ), and that all other sword dealers and collectors ( the other martial art styles) are not as good.
I even pointed out two examples of mistakes made by scott that you ignored.
Gene posted that there are others with differing views of Chinese history.
(just as the TKD nutrider ignored examples made by other forum members in my anology) .
Well, I was not trying to ignore any examples you used. I was responding to whatever I thought relevant at the time.
What you really mean is " Agree with me or your an idiot" ?
No, I am not claiming that at all. It is your analysis that resulted in my statement. You coud be a very intelligent person who just misunderstood my point (which, as I stated, is easy to misrepresent--on my part).
Have you read anything about the new Japanese history books and Japan's version of China? Now there is something to get worked up about, much more than a dao with a broken tip and a shorten scabbard in a martial art mag .
That is something to "get worked up about," yes. But does that have anything to do with the article in question? That is like stating one should focus on the crimes of a mafia don rather than on the silent corruption of a president. It is really a different thing altogether. Given the space in this magazine, I would happily respond to that. But this is a martial art setting, which is quite different from a focus on history books. The two can relate and often do (yes, in academic settings), but they can also be different, which they are.
It is so laughable that someone would change their opinion of themselves from a martial art mag article that I will not even debate it.
Did you mean to say that I cahanged my opinion about myself? Well, I did not.

If you mean to state that you do not find it valid that one's opinion about a magazine can change based on one article, then we just disagree. It depends on the article, right?
Let me try one last time. What would you have done if Gene had printed those flimsy opera jians as rare weapons made for a style that used precise cuts and thrusts? Wouldn't it have been better to print a letter with an opposing view?
Would it be better to send a letter to be published in the magazine? I am not so sure. I read the response from Philip Tom just yesterday (I did not even know I ahd the issue), and was sort of surprised by the response. The reply to the letter was not as serious as I thought it should be. If I take the time to critically approach something in the magazine and send a letter to it, I would like a serious reply. I am not sure I would get one. Therefore, a forum such as this works fine for me. It does not have to be on paper to have meaning.
Didn't you get an dao from Scott that you enjoy? You can take Gene up on his challenge for submissions to the mag and submit it. Wouldn't that be cool to see it?
Yeah, but I already responded to Gene about that. I would also want to verify an exact date myself, which would mean taking it apart. I am reluctant to do that because that would mean corrupting its structure as it is. But, hey, I see it every time I look at it, which is good enough for me. I posted links on the Taijiquan forum here to pictures of it, so you can see it if you search for it.