|
Post by Shogun on May 21, 2010 15:47:52 GMT -5
Reading more of this thread I realize that Mystic Gogeta and his ilk are either self-interested or wholly ignorant. Circ, for example, is an adult with a Master's Degree in computer science. He types considerably faster than Gogeta.
However, as I implied, the main difference is in their aptitude with my beloved English language. Circ writes English as though he were a writer. Gogeta writes English like a very competitive teenager in a chat.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it's in all of your best interests to behave as though RealChat and its fellow travelers are the best e-fighters. The unfortunate thing is that this isn't true. Even an evening in AT&T would force someone like Mystic to reappraise his own echelon of ability.
|
|
|
Post by MG on May 26, 2010 10:07:18 GMT -5
I agree with you. Circ is a phenomenal fighter and once I get this list up he will definitely be in the top 10. That being said, he isn't in the argument for being the best fighter ever. I destroyed him twice in our only two encounters and so did Kael. He doesn't have the type of resume to be the greatest of all time. The fact that he has a masters degree (which is pretty cool b/c I'm majoring in computer science also but I'm still working on my B.S.) is irrelevant to his fighting skills. When we fought, he degraded himself to being cheap just like the person you're criticizing and he still lost.
On top of that, when it comes to TB he lost to Nonpareil. So he lost to the greatest speed fighter of all time, me, and he lost to the greatest turn-based fighter of all time, Nonpareil.
Also, unless you're going to bring them here, quit talking these guys up.
|
|
|
Post by Dexter on Nov 27, 2011 20:35:13 GMT -5
Hm, interesting...
I'm not much of a speed-fighter, but my teacher was. My teacher used to speed-fight with Nonpareil way back in late-1990's, when they were both still noobs in Multicity chat. I'm told that nobody at that time could defeat either of them, so they started fighting each other instead. What's interesting about the above post is that you just referred to Nonpareil as the greatest "turn-based" fighter of all time.
Ironically, when I met my own teacher, he had already stopped practicing speed-based textual combat in favor of its more turn-based counterpart. I'm told that Nonpareil and my teacher are both members of the same clan. Nonpareil used to go by the name Seiryou Shinjou, while my own teacher used to go by the name Heiryou Shinjou, his younger brother. From what I understand, Heiryou used to train under Seiryou when they were younger, but as they got older, Heiryou eventually caught up to Seiryou and may have even surpassed him as a better fighter.
This story of course depends on whoever you hear it from. I know that when I met my teacher, he was very advanced in "turn-based" textual combat, so I never questioned his claim at being a better TB fighter. I was told by my teacher that he once had a no-holds-barred H2H speed-fight with Nonpareil in Metawerx around 2002, which apparently ended in a close draw. Neither one of them were seriously injured at the end of the match.
Later on, as a direct result of that same fight, my teacher supposedly entered Nonpareil's school and challenged him openly to a turn-based death match in front of his own students. For years, the result of that fight has never been talked about or discussed openly by disciples of either man. Nonpareil's own students claimed that Nonpareil won, whereas my school teaches that my own teacher was victorious. Whatever the case may be, neither one of them would meet each other again until the Grand Tournament of 2005, which both fighters claim was rigged.
More recently, I met a couple of the original students of Nonpareil who say that they were witnesses to the death match which took place at Nonpareil's school several years ago. At least two of the people I've met now claim that the fight could have gone either way, and that both masters continued to be active in the roleplaying community long after they stopped associating with one another.
I think what makes Nonpareil so popular as a turn-based fighter is that he openly fought in the GT-League, whereas my teacher tried not to associate himself with such organizations. My teacher warned me that the GT-League was arrogant, political and highly corrupted, which is why for years my clan has never really come out into the open to challenge others in public competitions. I was told that my teacher dropped out of the GT-League after killing a man with one hit, which at that time, was frowned upon. The other fighter was supposedly humiliated and refused to accept defeat, so my teacher left the tournament, and our clan hasn't gotten involved in the GT-League ever since.
What's interesting to note is that my teacher was apparently very fond of Circ Aloriath, who he had met in Metawerx back during the time when Heiryou and Seiryou were fighting. My teacher spoke very highly of Circ Aloriath, as if Circ himself was a better fighter than either of them. I've never met Circ Aloriath, but from what I understand, he must be a very special person for my teacher to have talked about him with such high respects like that. I think it was Circ's character and personality that my teacher admired most about him. I wish these guys were still here, so that I could learn more from them. I just started getting involved within the past few years.
From what I see, and from what I've been told, Quickhand is still the number one speed-based fighter, though I often wonder how well he really would have faired against my teacher. I guess some things we just will never know, unless these guys decide to finally come back one day and fight it out again like they did in the old days. But in the meantime, I guess we'll just have to accept the fact that all of these guys are just great fighters, and that some of them have win/loss records while some of them don't.
As for myself, I plan to be the overall "greatest turn-based H2H fighter" in 2012, regardless of whoever held that title in the past. I know I haven't really been around that long, I just kind of popped up within the last year or so, but I'm currently undefeated, and I do plan on becoming the "greatest turn-based H2H fighter", even if I have to beat some of the greatest fighters of all time in order to do that. The way I see it, you can have over 1000 fights on your record. I might not have any. But as long as I beat you that one time, it doesn't matter, I'm still the better fighter. So that's what I will be striving for here during the upcoming new year.
|
|
|
Post by MG on Nov 28, 2011 17:43:06 GMT -5
Dexter, this is getting old. It’s quite obvious you and Wesley are more than likely the same person. Nobody goes around rambling about their teacher every time they talk unless they’re one and the same. Especially when their teacher wasn’t that good to begin with.
Wesley is a cool guy and all, but he was never much of a speed fighter. At best he was decent. I remember fighting him like it was yesterday. He introduced me to his version of freeform, a style he called “Jeet Kune Do”. I know he got that from Bruce Lee but whatever. He even sent me a document on it, where he embodied the rules (which are no rules) in a simulation of the fight between Bruce and Ohara from Enter the Dragon. After that, we proceeded to fight in said style and it was a massacre. I was holding back because he was cool and I still demolished him. I would say I was fighting at about 25%. Mind you, this was my first time fighting in a style that he created! I don’t mean to be harsh, but don’t come up here spreading lies.
There was never a period in time where nobody could beat Wesley. Nonpareil, maybe. Speaking of Nonpareil, I find it interesting that you claim to be from the same clan as he and yet you offer no information on him. As you can see, I hail him as the greatest turn based fighter of all time. Being from his “clan”, you should be privy to whether this is an accurate or inaccurate claim or not. Not once have you defended your “brother”. It seems that you’re only concerned with Wesley, a fighter who isn’t half the fighter Nonpareil is. Why is that?
I believe Wesley dropped out of the league after his fight with me, a fight in which he was caught cheating.
I’m no longer the number one speed fighter, I’m the greatest speed fighter of all time. There’s a difference. How can I still be the number one speed fighter when I’m not even active?
Beating someone once doesn’t make you the better fighter. Lol, what the hell? I’m disappointed, Dex’. I took you for someone with a lot more knowledge than this.
|
|
|
Post by Dexter on Nov 29, 2011 5:19:54 GMT -5
Hahaha My apologies, Quickhand, I honestly didn't know you were the person my teacher supposedly fought in the GT-League, and I meant you no disrespect. I'm simply stating what my teacher told me. As I said, I wasn't there, so I don't know the whole story. If you won, you won. If not, it's whatever, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that these events really did take place, so they are not a figment of my teacher's imagination, nor of mine. My question is this. You say you fought my teacher using his own style, which he created. If the style had no rules, then how can you be sure you've won? Not that it matters, however, because my teacher never speed-fought in any of the Grand Tournaments, therefore you could not have fought him using speed, if you even fought him at all. Or could it be that my teacher was accused of cheating because it's frowned upon by the GT-League to kill with one hit? Also keep in mind that none of my claims are being questioned right now by any other members of this community. So far, the only person here who seems to be under any scrutiny is you. Not many people on this forum agree with your opinions of who the best fighters are. They are afterall, your opinions, and many other people seem to have different opinions than yourself. I don't mean to sound rude, and please forgive my arrogance, but I myself am a fairly decent fighter. There is no doubt in my mind that I could defeat at least two-thirds of the members of this community all by myself. Yet here you claim that just about everyone here could defeat my teacher? That is a bold statement, Master Quickhand, a very bold statement, especially for someone who claims to be no longer active. Concerning Nonpareil, it is true, I did say that we are members of the same clan. However, our clan has been around for many years, and there are many branches which have spread out to form their own schools and traditions. Nonpareil formed the Z-senshi, based around the Temple of Toushindera, which is where Seiryou Shinjou's lineage comes from. Seiryou Shinjou's tradition teaches that "freestyle" originated from Ken Kyo of Homestead chat in 1994, though Master Seiryou never stated how he learned that style to begin with, nor did he ever pass that tradition on to anyone else, except for my teacher, Heiryou Shinjou. My teacher also belonged to a different branch, the Ž Senshi Élite, which is supposedly the older of the two traditions. Heiryou's tradition teaches that "freeform" originated from Dai Kaiou Shin of Yahoo! chat in 1994, and I have already provided a library of information which helps to confirm Master Heiryou's lineage. I am a member of the Ž Senshi Élite, which is why you see me speak on behalf of that lineage. I was never a student of Nonpareil, which is why it is not my position to speak on his behalf. You are mistaking my respect for ignorance. The truth is, I do not know much about Nonpareil, and he is not my brother. If anything, he is my senior, because he started fighting long before I did. I do not know much about him, therefore it is not my place to talk about him, until I know more about him. Recently, I've made contact with a few of Nonpareil's original disciples, who might know more about his history than I do. You have to remember that everything I'm saying is based on one-sided oral traditions and vague memories. At one time, our clan was struck by a civil war within itself. Today, that war is over, and for the last five years or so, all the different branches of our clan seem to be coming closer together. The full story may not be entirely revealed just yet, but every day we seem to be inching closer to the truth. In regards to the last thing you said, I have to disagree with your opinion on that. You think that if you beat someone, that doesn't make you the better fighter? I fail to see your perspective on this subject. To me, it doesn't matter how many fights you've been in. You could be undefeated, and it still wouldn't make a difference. If someone comes along and ruins your perfect record, that is simply because they are a better fighter than you are. Now of course, you could always fight them again and win, which would make you the better fighter. But no matter how you look at it, when you lose, you must accept the fact that you lost, and that for a split second, there was a better fighter than you out there. When you get right down to the heart of it, it's not about honor, or respect, or humility. It's about technique, and if your technique causes you to lose, then you are obviously not the better fighter. You must then improve your skills, and try again, until you are the better fighter. Sure, we could get technical and suppose that somebody was just "lucky", but is it really luck, or is it one's failure to recognize when they have screwed up? The only other way you could approach such an argument would be to say that the judges are biased, in which case, you might be right. But in any fair fight which is not rigged, the person who wins is normally regarded as the better fighter. So where does honor, respect, and humility tie into all of this? It doesn't, these are just good qualities to have, and people tend to respect you more when you show them the same kind of courtesy. The reason I respect my teacher is because he is humble. The reason I talk so much about him is because he is my teacher. The reason he is my teacher is because I trust him, and I know him as a fighter. I also respect you, Master Quickhand, even though I never knew you. I respect everyone else in this community as well, otherwise I would not be here to share what I know with those who wish to hear me speak. My teacher never bragged about himself, he only spoke highly of other people, a lot of whom are members of this very website. I'd like to think there is a very good reason for that, but I also consider it my responsibility to talk about my teacher, who I think deserves recognition. If Nonpareil was here, I would treat him with the same respect.
|
|
|
Post by Dexter on Nov 29, 2011 5:38:38 GMT -5
By the way, I myself am not a retired fighter. I myself am still active, I still fight, and I'm fully prepared to defend my teacher's honor, and the honor of my clan, if need be.
Just saying..
|
|
Darth
Contender
Posts: 116
|
Post by Darth on Nov 29, 2011 7:42:17 GMT -5
Yahoo! Chat didn't exist in 1994. 1994 was the year that Yahoo! was named as such, it was David and Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web in early '94 and the domain name for Yahoo! wasn't even registered until 1995. It wasn't until January 7th, 1997, that Yahoo! had a chat function. Homestead also didn't exist in 1994. It was created in 1996, as attested to by their own website. Someone's either got their timeline twisted up, or somebody else is getting their chain yanked, because in 1994 neither of those sites existed.
|
|
|
Post by Dexter on Nov 29, 2011 14:14:16 GMT -5
Notice that word, "both", as in my teacher and Nonpareil both claimed that the tournament was rigged. This isn't me speaking, this is tradition. Not only did my teacher claim the tournament was rigged, but Nonpareil, who was my teacher's enemy in 2005, also said the same thing. Kind of curious, isn't it, that two men who hated each other with a passion, both made the same accusation?
Quickhand's response?
As I said, most of this is based on oral tradition and vague memories which have been handed down from one generation to the next. I learned the story from Goutetsu Ž (Wes) himself, who in turn learned the story from §hin Gouki Ž (Ken) himself. Taking into consideration that 2012 is right around the corner, you can imagine that the story has probably changed ever so slightly over the years. In fact, these are §hin Gouki Ž's very own words:
"Dai Kaiou Shin (Andy Oedo) was an old friend/mentor of mine, that I met way back, around '96. He was doing the online fighting thing way before me, back in Yahoo, and some other various chatroom forums at the time. He became notorious among the enthusiasts due to his great all-around combat ability. He had a very intricate 'style' to the way he fought, which was very innovative, and alluring to everyone at the time. But I think the reason he had such a great effect on alot of people, especially me, is the humbleness of his character. He was a real admirable person who had alot of knowledge, and was willing to share. In general, Dai Kaiou Shin was ahead of his time, in terms of ability- but the thing that people who knew him would remember him most, is the the quality of character he had." -- §hin Gouki Ž (Kenshiro, 2000 A.D.)
That is all I know. Everything else I know, I've already shared. I honestly don't know how accurate my timeline is, but some people have claimed that I regard my timeline as the "all" to everything. This simply is not true, and I wish those individuals would retract that statement. My timeline says right on it in plain script that it is "not" complete, that it is always being modified to include more fighters, more clans, more chats, more websites, more accurate dates, and more knowledge which leads everyone closer and closer to the truth. I have not rigged my timeline, nor have I made any attempts at changing history as it truly occurred. Nothing I have said is a lie, and I wish people would stop making those accusations. Again, I'm not the one who made these things up, I'm just the one who learned them and passed them on so that others can learn them as well. The arrogance in HoRF right now is astounding. Personally, I don't think anyone in the GT-League should be nominated as the best fighter. I think all fighters deserve a little bit of respect, regardless of who they are or what they teach.
So any way, I'm not yanking anyone's chain. It is true that I claimed to have a direct lineage going back to Dai Kaiou Shin, the founder of the Ž Senshi Élite, and I stand by what I've said before. I don't know anything about Nonpareil or Ken Kyo, so I can't comment on that. What I do know, I've shared, which seems to have helped, considering that nobody else has anything to offer on Ken Kyo at this time. As for my own lineage, well, you see it. I've presented the truth as best as I can regarding events which took place long before my time. All I'm doing now is passing it along. I'll let the true diehards take over from here. I've washed my hands of this mess for now. Take it and run with it.
By the way, here are some of the names of the characters I've just recently met who were "there" at the time when my teacher fought with Nonpareil and Quickhand, just in case anyone really wishes to check my credentials. None of these people know me, but they all knew my teacher, and most of them were friends and students of Nonpareil:
Raegar Blight Dante LeCriox Senshi Mitshura Keiyin Mitshura Donovan Mitshura Hayato Mitshura Souji Mitshura Xein Synith William Glitch Vincent Deathfist Quentin Longmeyer Teyku Rundaw Natalia Rundaw Roman Aramore Talion Baldir Jack Serithva James Serithva Lionell Gawain Cervanted MacTavish Solitaire Breanna Ryter Angelina Ryter
If you want to know more about my teacher, or Nonpareil himself, ask one of them. But do not sit here and call me a liar, and do not question my teacher's honor, or the honor of my clan. As you can see, even Nonpareil's own group, from a totally different lineage and website, have similar oral traditions. I didn't even know Quickhand was the person who fought my teacher in 2005, because I wasn't even there. Still, even Quickhand unknowingly confirmed that I am not a liar, a cheater, or a member of the GT-League.
So how is it that so much of my information adds up, if none of it is true? Sure, there might be a few minor differences here and there, but "spreading lies?" Please..
|
|
Dirge
Contender
Posts: 111
|
Post by Dirge on Nov 29, 2011 16:33:45 GMT -5
Huh. Wasn't the GT hosted in '06 and not '05?
|
|
Darth
Contender
Posts: 116
|
Post by Darth on Nov 29, 2011 17:50:28 GMT -5
The reasoning for why the information isn't correct isn't really my concern - I was just pointing out that it is, in fact, wrong. It took all of five seconds and a Google search to find the information for Yahoo, and all I had to do was go to the Homestead website to find the information on when they started up. Just saying; for someone who's so anal retentive over constantly detailing the history of your clan, you could have checked the dates yourself with relative ease.
Also, lol. The GT. The GT's outcome or running has never - and should never - be a means by which anyone should determine how good of a fighter someone is. That's not because of the fighters, or quality thereof, it's because the tournament has been ran so terribly by Martindale that it can barely even be considered an actual fucking event, and I'm not even sure it managed to actually retain half its status quo of required fighters for the first round for more than a couple of days in each iteration.
Not to mention the sheer ease by which one can cheat the system to put yourself in the top ten. See: a majority of Nonpareil's fights being against motherfuckers who were in one or two fights and never showed up again, or who didn't even apparently show up to their match with him.
And I'm not even dissing the dude; I've talked to him before and I mediated over his fight with Ran. But the fact is that the site has always been a very piss-poor example of a "fighting league" because its so easy to loophole yourself a bevy of points and wins to pad out your score and bump you up in ranking. Nonpareil was never dominant, he only had the number one spot. Which means nothing when you realize a person could just make a mass of ghost accounts and load up on wins, or could just get a host of friends and associates to hand over wins to them.
The biggest problem with the GT is that it's run by Martindale. The guy's good at conceptualizing. He's even good at website building, I guess; seeing as how I don't do that type of stuff I can't really say one way or the other. But he's HORRIBLE at execution when it comes to an event like the GT, and should have never had a hand in running it.
|
|
|
Post by Dexter on Nov 30, 2011 4:06:15 GMT -5
As soon as I mentioned the GT-League, I noticed a lot of hostility. My apologies, perhaps I should not have mentioned it. In regards to your statements, Darth, you may have noticed me say on several occassions that I do not claim to know everything, and that I actually practice a tradition. Allow me to ellaborate on that, so people don't get confused, because I'm sensing a lot of hostility right now coming from people who have no right to make accusations. Alright, what does it mean when I say "I don't claim to know everything"? Well, that's pretty basic, and I think the answer is obvious for such a rhetorical question. Alright, what does it mean when I say "According to our tradition"? Okay, let's get this straight. I come from a long line of on-line fighters. People keep saying that I'm being repetitive and talking too much about my clan, but yet I'm still being forced to repeat myself, which means that someone isn't listening to what I'm saying, and the simple fact of the matter is that they just don't care what I have to say. They don't like me, they don't like my clan, and they wish I had never made an impact on the people who visit this forum. However, with that said, I do not express the same jealousy, hatred or envy towards anyone else on this forum. I've made it quite clear that I am unbiased, and that I respect everyone equally, no matter what clan, tradition, site, or fighting style they are accustomed to. I myself am accustomed to a different tradition, a different clan, and a different site, but a lot of the same fighting styles, just from different perspectives. I've been told that a lot of the information I've shared has been contributive to this website, but it's also plain to see that I am not a registered member of this community. A lot of the fighters I hold in high regard are also not registered with HoRP at this time. There is a very, very good reason for that. My timeline isn't the most accurate Textual Combat History on the internet, but at this very moment, it does remain the most informative, apprehensive and widespread. Most of the inconsistencies with my timeline are minor at best, nothing a little bit of editing can't fix. My timeline is always under construction, and with each passing year it gets longer and longer, more accurate, and a lot more informative. So when it comes to documenting the "history of rp fighting", right now, my timeline pretty much takes the gold. But that's not the only contribution I've made to this website. I've also taken the liberty of posting the "original" tutorials for T1, T2, T3, AA, and Freeform, none of which were even included on HoRP before I came along, and all of which since then have been neatly documented and confirmed by the original creators and authors of those tutorials, who nobody in HoRP even acknowledged before I came around. I think it's pretty sad when people don't respect our founders enough to preserve their "original" traditions, and instead go about re-writing RP history as they see fit to write it. Thirdly, and most of all, I have contributed a library's worth of information concerning my own clan, the Ž Senshi Élite, which before I came along, had never even been mentioned on this website. I have shared everything I know, concerning not only the "original" branch I belong to, which extends back to Dionysus and Dai Kaiou Shin, but also to Nonpareil's branch which extends back to Ken Kyo, of which I'm not even affiliated, nor qualified to talk about. I, Goukensatsu Ž (Dex), learned everything I know from Goutetsu Ž (Wes), who in turn learned our traditions from §hin Gouki Ž (Ken), who in turn learned everything he knows from Dai Kaiou Shin (Andy), who we regard as being equal to Kellindil (John) as far as his contributions to textual combat. That is my lineage, a direct lineage which goes all the way back to the very beginning of speed-based textual combat, or at least as far back as anyone can remember. We're not even sure who Dai Kaiou Shin's teacher was, if he even had one at all. Dai Kaiou Shin became the undisputed speed-based fighting champion almost 20 years ago, before anyone on HoRP was even heard of. Dai Kaiou Shin was my great grandmaster and the founder of my clan, as well as the credited father of freeform/freestyle, so of course I'm going to talk about him with the highest respects. That in itself is only right, and if that makes me anal, then so be it. As far as accurate dates are concerned, sure, I could have easily searched Google and probably came up with those dates myself, but then I would be mixing the truth with legend. I am not a modified on-line fighter, I am a traditionalist, and I am only here to preserve our "original" traditions. If I told you that §hin Gouki Ž (Ken) told my teacher Goutetsu Ž (Wes) that Dai Kaiou Shin (Andy) came from Yahoo! in 1997, then I would be a liar. Why? Because that's not what our tradition teaches us. Our "tradition" teaches us that Dai Kaiou Shin came from Yahoo! in 1994, because that is the information §hin Gouki Ž (Ken) passed down from generation to generation. Now, you said that Yahoo! was given its name in 1994, but it didn't have a chat until 1997, so perhaps there is some bit of truth to these oral traditions, afterall: "Dai Kaiou Shin (Andy Oedo) was an old friend/mentor of mine, that I met way back, around '96. He was doing the online fighting thing way before me, back in Yahoo, and some other various chatroom forums at the time. He became notorious among the enthusiasts due to his great all-around combat ability. He had a very intricate 'style' to the way he fought, which was very innovative, and alluring to everyone at the time." -- §hin Gouki Ž (Kenshiro, 2000 A.D.) §hin Gouki Ž (Ken) stated that he met Dai Kaiou Shin in 1996, which is the year you said Homestead chat was opened to the public. Nonpareil claimed that he learned freestyle from Ken Kyo, a member of Homestead chat. As I said before, there is very good reason to believe in recent years that Dai Kaiou Shin (Andy) and Ken Kyo ( ) are in fact the same person with two different names. §hin Gouki Ž (Kenshiro) called his own style "freeform", whereas Shin Gouki Z (Nonpareil) called it "freestyle". So a bit anal, I may be, but a liar I am not, and I demand that Quickhand stops with these accusations.
|
|
|
Post by Dexter on Nov 30, 2011 7:05:14 GMT -5
Now that that's all said and done, it's time to get back on topic. Without a doubt, and I'm sure everyone here will agree that the undisputed hands-down "Best RP Fighter Ever" is this...
It is the fighter who makes no mention of themselves, and desires no recognition. It is someone who does not care whether or not they are famous, who does not keep records of how many wins or losses they have, and who has no pride or selfish desires. It is someone who has conquered their ego.
It is the fighter who shows respect, and who is in turn, respected for their own personality. It is someone who behaves maturely, who sets a good example for others through their very own words and actions. It is someone who is revered by the roleplaying community, who is known for their character and discipline. It is someone who fights fairly, with honor and humility.
It is someone who does not cheat, troll, flood, copy and paste. It is someone who does not harrass other fighters, nor goes around challenging others to a duel. It is someone with restraint who knows how to win an argument without fighting. It is someone who keeps their mind and body pure at all times, who distances themselves from dirty humor and foul language. It is someone with real-life martial arts experience who still knows the difference between IRL and RPG.
It is the fighter who has typing skills, someone who knows how to write descriptively with very few typos. It is someone who is good at acting and who can roleplay effectively in any storyline with believable characters. It is someone who has learned both speed-based and turn-based textual combat, who can practice both with equal levels of skill. It is the fighter who respects all ways, yet is not bound to any of them at the same time. It is someone who can fight with or without word limitations, with or without connections.
It is someone who is fluid, who can switch back and forth with ease, and one who is highly regarded by the roleplaying community in both offense and defense. It is the fighter who is well-rounded, who is not limited to any specific power level. It is someone who can fight unarmed just as well as they can fight with weapons or magic. It is the perfect fighter, and yet it is the fighter who does not believe in the possibility of perfection.
It is the fighter who cannot be named, because such a fighter does not exist. Everyone strives to be that fighter. Everyone wishes they knew somebody who fit that description. The truth, however, is that nobody here is worthy of that title. There simply isn't anyone, anywhere, who can be regarded as the undisputed hands-down "Best RP Fighter Ever".
I'm sorry.
|
|
Darth
Contender
Posts: 116
|
Post by Darth on Nov 30, 2011 7:43:46 GMT -5
As soon as I mentioned the GT-League, I noticed a lot of hostility. I mentioned the GT when Dirge brought it up. You aren't being "forced" to do anything, you're just apparently incapable of making a retort or taking part in a discussion without falling back on constantly selling the same two pence of information about your clan. Most of the time, it's not even relevant or required for whatever it is you want to say - you just arbitrarily bring it up. Maybe no one cares about your clan because you keep talking about it in a context wher e it isn't really relevant, and when it is relevant, you end up going off on a multi-paragraph tangent about the "traditions" (a word I'm using lightly, here) about your internet clan. You shouldn't expect people to take into account information with has nothing to do with the topic at hand. For example: the vast majority of the post I'm responding to right now is absolutely irrelevant to anything that I posted. I pointed out that you had incorrect information in your post and that it would have taken a few seconds to look up and verify. Your response? Multiple paragraphs of text that have absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't know why you're responding to me - most of this has no relevance to what I said. You mean comprehensive, and no on all three counts, unless you count it as being the "most" by virtue of the fact that there's probably not any other timeline, but that doesn't actually make any of those adjectives applicable to your timeline. I'm calling it a timeline because it isn't history, as I'll explain in a moment. I don't really take roleplay or anything as being serious, but if you're going to treat your history as a serious historical endeavor, then I'll critique it like one. Your "history" has more than a few inconsistencies. Let me be frank: As far as history goes, it doesn't even count as such. If that were put in front of an editor for a historical journal, it would get crumpled up and tossed in the trash because there's nothing historical about it other than that the things listed might have happened in the past. But from the scholarly viewpoint of history, it's no such thing. I mean, firstly, your timeline is all sorts of schizophrenic. For the first half, it's apparently a history of roleplay in general - okay, fine. Then halfway through, it switches gears and focuses on "textual combat." If this were a history of roleplay in general, i.e. how it came to be and grew in popularity, the vast majority of info in the latter half would simply be covered in red ink and the word "RELEVANCY?" would be scribbled into the margin. Several times. Because going in-depth on one form of roleplay deviates from what the rest of the list is; a survey of the timeline of roleplaying as it is. Now, if this is supposed to be a history of "textual combat", the reverse would be true - from the very beginning to just before 1995 would be marked out because it's irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? Because you're covering the history of textual combat - which is NEVER mentioned prior to 1995 in any remotely meaningful way. The history of roleplay in general is not actually relevant to the history of textual combat. If you're writing a history of something, you don't write the history of things that came before it which have no immediate relevancy to the object at hand, because these come before the existence and history of your topic. It would be like if I wrote up an entire section on the history of the United States if my paper was solely based on the history of Hawaii as a state. Yes, Hawaii is a state of the USA. However, that doesn't make the history of the USA relevant to the history of Hawaii, in that things like the American Revolution are removed in both immediacy and topical relevance. The only part of US history which would be relevant would be that immediately proceeding and involving the decision to acquire Hawaii, and the immediate history of Hawaii prior to being a state. In the same way, much of the history provided in your timeline isn't really relevant. Someone playing a boardgame in Egypt is not an immediate factor in the formation of roleplay combat. Not even the creation of DnD is. When writing history, you deal with what's immediately relevant. That means if I'm writing the history of the Alexandrian Empire that reached from Macedonia to India, I'm not going to write about the Assyrians, or the Medes, or the Neo-Babylonians, or the Lydians, even though they're relevant to Persian history. However, just because they're relevant to Persian history doesn't mean they're relevant to Alexandrian history. And even when dealing with the Persians, you would only preface the last two kings; at most you might mention Xerxes I. But you wouldn't reach all the way back to Cyrus the Great. He's not relevant. Much in the same way that huge swathes of information in your timeline aren't relevant to your topic. An actual history of textual combat would begin at the point of immediate relevancy - likely, with the formation of the world wide web, and chatrooms such as they were when textual combat began. Perhaps you could justify going as far back as the formation of the internet, but you wouldn't include all the extraneous information that you've got. This is immediately prior to the conception and growth of textual combat, it sets the stage for the history thereof, and is immediately impactful on it. Everything else listed, the video games, the release of Star Wars, etc? Not relevant to your topic of choice. The history of your clan suffers from this exact same issue; historically speaking, much of the information you provided wasn't relevant to the formation of the clan itself. Bruce Lee did not have a hand in putting together the clan. A history of your clan would actually begin with its founders and move from there. All the information proceeding that point is not relevant nor immediate to the founding or history of the clan, which means it doesn't need to be there. If you write a biography of Bruce Lee, you don't spend ten chapters detailing the history of Wing Chun and Chinese martial arts. You write the history of the man's life. Again, immediacy, relevancy, etc. Focus on the topic of choice. Next is accuracy. I'll be frank: it's not accurate. Not historically. Why? Because there's no research provided. People say "Oh I talked to x or y and looked up this or that." Okay. That doesn't mean anything from the standpoint of historical veracity. Here's a term you're going to want to be familiar with: Sources. If you don't have them, it isn't historically accurate, nor can its veracity be ascertained. Secondary sources, primary sources; learn what those are. And then pick up a guide on Chicago/Turabian writing and citation, because you're going to want to find out how to do foot and endnotes and how to put together a bibliography. When you can do that, and when you can provide relevant, factual sources to what your timeline says, then you can run around claiming you've "documented" anything. Because honestly, you haven't documented much of anything beyont apparently hearsay and quote-unquote tradition. You've listed what you've been told, or what you've heard, but that's not historical documentation. What I listed above - sources listed via end/footnotes to support statements and then a compiled list of bibliographical excerpts - that's documentation. As for being informative, or comprehensive? Hardly. It might be informative in the sense that no one knew that someone was playing a boardgame in Egypt in 8000 BC or they might not know some of the early details of textual combat, but your history is no more comprehensive than any of Quickhand's "Best x or y fighter" lists. Comprehensive is not a word that applies here, your history has huge gaping holes that don't account for whole communities. Which, again, is just how it is. You're not going to be comprehensive in scope. Not unless you want to actually go out and dig into every little nook and cranny to really find out about the history of every fighting community you can find, past or present. Which is probably more trouble than it's worth. But if you're so serious about it, go for it. You would be better off doing the same thing I told Quickhand to do: accept that these lists, timelines, etc are ultimately not history and not comprehensive, and account for that by letting people know that these are your interpretations and/or the extent of YOUR knowledge, and are not comprehensive nor are they necessarily factual (given the lack of sources). Or, if you're so serious about it, you could put in the time and effort to not only do research, but to actually document it. The only reason I'm taking you to task over this is to make a point: history is a scholarly discipline, and it's not a good idea to confuse it for what some people have posted on this site. Talking from your own experiences and knowledge is fine, but don't pass it off as something it isn't. If you're going to make claims to historical veracity, or of being historically documented, I'll take you to task on that. Talking highly about him and being incapable of stringing together an argument without resorting to "My master's master's master was this guy and did this and blah blah blah" are two different things. The first is fine. The second is annoying, and also contributes absolutely nothing to your argument or to the discussion at hand. Don't be a prat, there's nothing remotely close to legend in what we're being discussed. You can either post correct dates, or you can expect to be called out on lying, even if it's lying through ignorance. Okay. The information is still wrong. If you're fine with being wrong, that's great, but don't get uppity and go all "hurr durr internet traditions" on me just because I point out the factual inconsistencies with what you're posting. Personally, I'd rather err on the side of fact, than on the side of arbitrarily using incorrect information just because someone else told me said information. I didn't say it. Yahoo! did. Okay. But in the post I responded to, you said it was 1994. So again, all I did was tell you that your numbers were wrong. That doesn't require an entirely irrelevant diatribe. That requires a "Okay." Which brings me to the point of my opening statement in my last post: For someone so anally retentive, you really shouldn't have gotten those dates wrong, especially when they're present in your "history." All you had to do was check there, or even just a Google search to make sure you had the correct numbers, as opposed to.. incorrect numbers, i.e. 1994. Also, apparently Dionysus (Wesley) wrote your history, because it was in this thread up until he was accused several times of plagiarism (i.e. not citing his sources) and it was removed. However, your timeline and his are clearly one in the same: see the post immediately below his, wherein Senet is referenced (the Egyptian boardgame circa 3500 BC), and because his post is described as "Text Combat's Complete History." Also because I read his post prior to it being deleted and the timelines are more or less identical with a handful of additions or changes, but whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Dexter on Dec 1, 2011 7:40:18 GMT -5
Ah, but you didn't use the GT with reference to Goutetsu Ž or Nonpareil.
You're right, I'm not literally being "forced" to do anything, it was just a figure of speech. Recently, some of my colleagues have been making efforts to document other clans including the Crystal Knights, High Land Army, Legendary Knights, Imperial Army, Mystic Army, Mavericks, Yakuza, Triads, Thirteen Warriors, Dragoon Knights, Elven Horde, Saiyan Elite, and the Vampire Knights.
You can be sure that the same amount of time, effort, research and patience has been given to these clans. The project is not as easy as one might think.
What is the topic at hand? "The Best Fighter Ever"? What kind of topic is that, seriously? You're just asking for trouble with a topic title like that. I could just as easily claim that Dai Kaiou Shin was "the best fighter ever", and nobody here would be able to argue with that claim because Dai Kaiou Shin had a clean record. Having participated in several open challenges and legendary tournaments (i.e. KoF), Dai Kaiou Shin never once lost a fight. He was active for at least five years straight, and retired while he was yet undefeated. Nobody else can say that. The mere fact that his name is still whispered today is a testament to his character and skill. Is there anyone else who can challenge this claim?
I gave you a simple answer. The rest of my post is in response to everything as a whole, even the more hidden agenda, which might seem invisible to the untrained eye. What you basically said is that my dates were wrong. I apologize for my ignorance. My dates were wrong, you were correct about that. But according to my "tradition", such events really did take place, and yes, they have been confirmed not just by myself, but by others as well. It's not like I made these things up, and that is what it seems like a few people are now trying to say. As I said before, I am fully prepared to defend my own honor, my teacher's honor, or the honor of my clan if need be. I don't see how making a simple mistake by one or two years deserves such blatant criticism in the first place. You were simply asking for it.
Say again? There's probably not any other timeline? Why is that? We're here to document the "history of roleplay fighting", given the very name of this website, and you're telling me there's probably not any other timeline, besides the one that I presented? My question is, "why"? I look forward to learning why you don't think my timeline is actual history, albeit from one point of view.
I do take it somewhat seriously, given the close bonds and relationships that some of our players have developed over the years. I've watched some of the greatest roleplayers I've ever met get enlisted into the service and sent to war. I've seen some awesome on-line fighters who ended up becoming doctors or lawyers. But the greatest reason for my deep respect has something to do with those players who, for whatever reasons, are no longer with us today. I've seen the sparkle in people's eyes when I talk about ancient legends, or when I mention a certain fighter's name from the past. Some of these players might not even be alive today, so it is with great humility and seriousness that I try to honor their memories and preserve our oral history.
When true events can be said to have happened in the past, if remembered, it is considered history. It might just be partial fragments of history, but it is still history, none-the-less.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here, but I do agree that my timeline still needs a lot of work done to it. Don't everyone volunteer at once. Instead, let's continue arguing, as that seems to be more productive.
My timeline is free. I give it to you freely. I ask for nothing in return, except for your respect. If there is something wrong with it, fix it. As for me, I'm sticking to tradition. I'm not asking for anyone to follow in my footsteps. I'm just someone who wishes to preserve the old ways, which a few players still regard as being both effective and important in modern times.
A lot of the events listed on my timeline before 1995 are relevant to the history of roleplaying in general. Anyone who takes the leaves into consideration, without acknowledging the importance of the branches and the tree, fails to truly see the whole picture in all of its beauty. There would be no "roleplay fighting" without roleplay itself, therefore I have simply taken the next step towards preserving our foundation. If you do not find that part of history to be relevant, then I am sorry you feel that way, but again I must disagree. Either way, it doesn't hurt any fighter to learn more about roleplay history. Education is a virtue amongst fighters.
Strategic board games are extremely relevant to the history of textual combat because the very first roleplaying battles didn't take place on a web forum, they took place on a peice of paper, or a game board. Today, that game board has become the "setting" of textual combat. The roleplaying game, Dungeons & Dragons, is also relevant to the history of textual combat because some of the very first "fantasy RPG battles" on the internet were based around D&D perimeters.
Again, education is a virtue amongst on-line fighters. My advice to you is, if you don't like it, don't look at it.
This is where you are completely wrong, and I'm glad you brought that up, because this will help prove my point. You mentioned Wing Chun, which is a style many people are familiar with. My whole clan is said to have practiced Wing Chun, both in real-life, and in their respective RPG communities. According to Wing Chun's oral "tradition", Wing Chun was founded by a woman named Ng Mui, who witnessed the fight between a snake and a crane. But according to modern research, Ng Mui was a mythical character who never truly existed. Now, it is believed that Wing Chun actually originated from an actor of the Chinese Opera, particularly a stage-fighter named Cheung Ng.
That in itself is a relevant example of what I mean by "tradition". Though the dates, settings and characters may change, what remains is the result of true events that actually took place many years ago. Even though Yip Man himself often narrated the story of Ng Mui, nobody ever accused Yip Man of spreading lies, simply because he chose to honor his "tradition". Bruce Lee is relevant to our clan because, although he did not have a direct hand in putting our clan together, it is quite obvious that our clan has been deeply influenced by his teachings. Bruce Lee himself was an actor and a stage-fighter, just like Cheung Ng, and according to my clan, there is not much difference between textual combat and stage-fighting. Both are a form of acting. Both involve a great deal of roleplaying in-character. So you see, to the members of my clan, that is entirely relevant.
I don't need sources. The names I've provided, the places I have named, those are my sources. All one needs to do is check with any one of them, and you will find that my research speaks for itself. There are a few people here and there who came forward and said, "Hey man, that's not exactly how I remember it", or "There are a few inaccuracies", but nobody has ever said "That's not history" or "That never happened". Almost everyone agrees that my research has been entirely honest, and that my timeline is pretty darn close to what actually happened.
Again, if anything is wrong with it, fix it. My timeline was never meant to be unaltered. It is constantly growing, and constantly being edited to include more accurate entries. All I have provided is a basic structure which allows further growth and development. Thank you for acknowledging my hard work. You're welcome.
How many times have I said this? I'll say it one more time, just for you. These lists, timelines, etc. are ultimately not the "whole" story, they are merely interpretations which reflect the extent of MY knowledge, and are not meant to be regarded as the "complete" end-to-all.
Happy?
Indeed it's true, Dionysus (Wes) did play a huge part in developing this research. In fact, that does look like one of the original timelines Dionysus showed me before it was edited. What I basically did is what Dionysus wished someone would do, and that's try to fix it. Since Dionysus handed this project over to me, you can be sure I've checked most of his references, a lot of whom can be found right here on HoRP, the very website we're having this discussion in. I've also already listed a ton of people who can also be used for reference, many of whom are former students of Nonpareil.
I think labelling it the "complete" history of textual combat was a mistake on Dion's part. He told me on a couple of different occassions that he felt the name should be changed, as it was actually misleading. I think what he meant by the title is that he wanted to present the complete history of textual combat, not just the clans and events which he had referenced. The more he drifted away, the more I could tell that Dionysus truly was starting to respect all fighters, regardless of their divisions. Later, I closed down the Textual Combat Museum because things got out of hand, and I no longer saw any reason to believe why TCM's archives should be restricted to only one website. Dionysus felt that knowledge should be handed out freely to anyone who wished to learn. He didn't feel as though knowledge was some type of power to be used against other people. Since then, a handful of people including myself have been going around and spreading that knowledge freely, everywhere we go.
But I've also posted several pages and interviews which took place between Dionysus and the other "sources" you are looking for, including §hin Gouki Ž (Ken), Nonpareil (Eric), Vøices øf Xenøn (James), Dalmuros (Alex), Kao-Vegeta (Eric), CloakedWarriorRias (Brian), LegendaryMercenaryScias (Max), Hidoshi Nobunaga (Mark), Circ Aloriath (Bryon), Thrall Ryne (Kermit), etc. etc. etc. You want to complain that I didn't take a few seconds to Google some dates, yet some of these guys are members of this very community. Why haven't you spoken to any of them yet, or showed any of them the same time of day as you've shown me? All of these people are just as knowledgable as I am when it comes to those interviews, and Dionysus (Wes) regarded all of them as truly remarkable fighters who are worthy of being noted. In fact, these fighters were so great in the eyes of Dionysus that we even had an entire website dedicated to their honor.
I could go on picking your paragraphs apart one at a time, but I'm pretty sure I've already made my point clear. I'm done talking about this subject, because frankly it's a waste of time and energy. As I said before, I've washed my hands of this mess. Do what you want with it. I have other matters to attend to, and active matches which require my attention. My advice to you guys is not to throw stones when you live in a glass house. I recommend that you guys just forget about trying to pinpoint "the best fighter ever", because if you continue to do that, you're going to miss the awesome fights which are right there in front of you.
Take care.
|
|
Darth
Contender
Posts: 116
|
Post by Darth on Dec 1, 2011 9:39:19 GMT -5
Actually I DID use the GT with reference to Nonpareil pretty obviously, but whatever.
And that still wouldn't cover even a tenth of the roleplaying population. Not that it matters, because again, you're going off on a completely irrelevant tangent.
No. Is that what you and I were or are talking about? It's not even what Quickhand was talking about in his last post. So no, that's not the topic at hand, anyone with two eyes and the ability to read would realize that we're not discussing that topic.
And it still didn't even retort what Quickhand was saying.
So again: relevancy seems to be an issue because instead of discussing the quote-unquote topic at hand, you consistently fall back onto talking about your clan. Quickhand didn't mention anything about your clan except in regards to Dionysus's talent as a fighter, and about the possibility of you and he being one in the same.
The answers to those topics would have been an affirmative or negative of identity and a defense of Dionysus's ability. Not a history of your clan that does absolutely nothing to answer either of those presented topics.
Topics that are clear even to the "untrained" eye, but apparently ones that can't be answered without constructing a "tradition" which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Okay. But if your tradition is that x or y happened in 1994 when it couldn't have, then your tradition is wrong.
Asking for what? More off-topic rambling? God forbid you actually manage to get on topic for more than three sentences. If you can't get your dates right, then I'll tell you to do more research to verify things like that. If you can't handle criticism, then I suggest you drop any pretense of ever presenting information as fact or history, because you're going to get criticized. Writing history is essentially a process of criticism that chips away at your information until it's distilled to the most essential facts.
Have you seen another timeline? I didn't really think it was that complex of a statement, but apparently the intricacies of pointing out that there's not many other - if any other - explicit timelines (versus individual timelines) or attempts to construct a cohesive history out there at present are just exceedingly complex. This site merely records things more as memoirs, rather than as a cohesive historical record.
And? I've hung out with plenty of people I've met through roleplaying in person. That doesn't mean I take the hobby through which I met them seriously.
There's nothing ancient about the past fifteen years, and I hardly count anything accomplished in roleplay as being legendary.
In the most literal sense, yes. But there's a difference between talking about history as something that happened, and talking about history in the context of "recording past events as fact." These are two different things. People who are untrained in the field usually don't understand that any time someone writes a book about history or a paper, it's falling into the latter category. Ergo, your timeline does.
Disagreeing doesn't change the fact that I'm right. It's not history at present. It isn't. Not in the second definition I provided, which is where your timeline lies. Your timeline is - at present - more like a very convoluted series of random facts, uncited interviews, and memoirs. Which isn't bad if you're saying "This is my memoir of textual combat from the beginning, as it was told to me and as I saw it."
But that's different than scholarly "history."
Relevant to roleplay in general. Your history isn't presented as such. If you're providing a history of roleplay combat, i.e. a specific topic, which means you would need - at most - a preface discussing roleplaying, which would likely begin with MUDs because your specific topic is also online. If a topic doesn't answer how, when, where, or why in regards to what you're putting together a history of, it isn't relevant.
Specificity is your friend when writing history.
I don't "feel" one way or another, this is how it works if you want to write history accurately and correctly.
If you write a history of roleplaying combat, you began with the things that are IMMEDIATELY RELEVANT. That's how history works. And the topics that are immediately relevant would begin with the world wide web, at earliest, because that accounts for the how, the when, and the where. Anything prior? Irrelevant. Star Wars does not answer how, when, where, or why. D&D does not answer how, when, where, or why.
No they aren't. If it doesn't answer how, when, what, where, or why, it isn't HISTORICALLY relevant. Talking about a board game like chess is not relevant to any of those criteria. It doesn't explain how we do textual combat, or where we do it, or how what it is we're doing, because there's merely parallels, no direct connection.
Maybe. D&D would be relevant only because it accounts for "modern" roleplaying, but even then, that would be a stretch.
And my advice to you would be to get an education, because if you want to write history, you ought to learn how to do it. I'd suggest a copy of A Manual for Writers by Kate Turabian and A Short Guide to Writing About History by Richard Marius and Melvin E. Page as a beginning discourse on the topic. Writing history actually has specific requirements, and if you're going to write it and call it as such, then it's a good idea to meet those requirements.
None of that answers the how, when, where, what, or why of your clan's history. The founding of Wing Chun or Bruce Lee's practice of it has no influence on the founding of your internet clan. The beginning of your clan starts with the beginning of your clan, i.e. when its founders put the organization together. The information on Wing Chun is extraneous and therefore not of immediate relevancy to the topic. End of discussion.
Tradition and history are two different things. History is an attempt to factually ascertain and record the happenings of the past. Tradition is a - usually oral - presentation of the past as people remembered it, and ergo is not necessarily focused on actual facts. Which is fine, because tradition isn't meant to be history, they're two different things.
If you're presenting tradition.. call it that. Don't call it history.
Because nothing. Reread what I posted. HISTORICALLY speaking, he's not relevant. If you're writing tradition, sure, stick him in there.
If you're writing history - and that's what you've been erroneously calling it - then he's not relevant.
Then you aren't writing history. If you're writing history, you need sources to provide historical veracity. Period. Anyone with even an ounce of training in historical research and writing knows that. Call it a memoir. The tradition as you heard it. Whatever. But don't call it what it isn't; don't call it history.
That's not how source citation works. It's your job to provide verification for your history. If you interviewed people, say so. Anyone familiar with historical writing knows that interviews are perfectly citable sources, because although they can be inconsistent, they're still primary sources.
So no, none of the things you just listed are sources. A source would be an interview, or even a webpage, or something. By your logic, if I'm writing a history of the Romans, the fact that Rome exists is a perfectly valid source. Yeah, no. That doesn't work. If you say "blah blah blah happened in this chat", it's not the chat's existence that needs sources, it's the actions you just described that do.
In other words.. you need sources. Something like this - from a historical point of view - would rely very heavily on interviews. Which is fine, so long as you actually CITE them.
Why should I do someone else's work for them? No thanks. If you want to call something you write history, do the required work in gathering, citing, and presenting sources. The onus for all that is on the writer, no the reader. If I write a history of the American Civil War, I'm not going to tell my readers "Go look it up yourself if you don't believe me!" because it's understood what when you write history, you're providing the means through which veracity can be proven. You make the argument of factual basis through your sources.
Then don't call it history.
The biggest mistake would be referring to it as history wiuthout any disclaimer. It would be more accurate to call it tradition, or to at least point out it's history "as you heard it."
And yet you never cite them. See above about learning how to write and cite history and historical sources.
Because that's not my job as the reader. It's your job as the writer to cite and present all your research for people to see, they don't have to go out and find it. You write the history, you provide the research that is meant to prove the veracity of your history. Again, no one writes a history text and goes "If you don't believe me, go look it up yourself!" The entire POINT of writing history beyond the obvious illumination of the past is that you provide veracity for your statements by presenting relevant research.
Flip open any history text, something like Ward Churchill's Kill the Indian, Save the Man. Check the back of the book. There's more than twenty pages of cited sources. Why? Because he's not just saying "This happened." He's saying "This happened, and I've got the sources to verify it."
And that's the difference between an untrained or uneducated writer simply putting together a chronology of things that may or may not have happened, and history. History is not only a statement of what happened, but also a verification through sources that supports the truth of the statement.
And I could keep showing how you haven't any idea of what you're talking about and proving you wrong, because out of the two of us in this conversation, I'm the only one with so much as an inkling of an understanding of how to go about writing and researching history.
Like I said: if you want to call it history, do the work required for it. If you don't want to do the work, don't get mad when someone points out that, hey, your work is essentially unfounded and therefore not really historically factual because you didn't want to present your research.
That you don't know how to research and write history? Yeah, that's pretty well clear. Call it "the tradition of roleplaying combat as I heard it" if you want, or call it a construction of history as you've heard it. But if you don't want to be told "That's not historically relevant and your work isn't historical because doesn't meet the criteria of historical research".. then don't call it history.
My advice to you guys is not to throw stones when you live in a glass house.[/quote]
The irony is palpable.
|
|