michael jackson

[plumflower_pm]

They can all jump on my case and say I'm a crazy asshole.

ok, you're a crazy asshole.

It's not up to you to try to surmise why anyone does anything. How could it possibly be your concern to comment on someone else's experiences and reasoning?

Leave it.




another 100 dd's on guilty.

[xing_jian108]

The MJ debate wasn't to point out shortcomings of anyone. It was defending a guy who has yet to be proven one way or the other, but has more evidance in his favor. And besides this it was to show that people were making jokes about the lives of certain children who may have been hurt. Is this disrespectful? No one has been able to speak their side but only call me an ass and this and that.

And with Doc, it's not so much a personal thing with him. I don't care who it is. I'm not disrespecting the person. It's that monks, the temple, an entire religion was carelessly disrespected. That alone isn't much of a big deal. But then a religious ceremony took place disrespectfully, and then it's all passed on a large website for everyone to learn from. If you are interested in martial arts, it's cool. You don't have to be a Buddhist. But Shao Lin is above all a Buddhist temple. Any of you would be unhappy if someone came into your place of religious practice and went through the ceremonies and totally disrespected the whole thing and blew it off just to share some experiences and inside stories on a friggen website.

The thing I don't quite get is how I'm a jackass who doesn't like to be disagreed with. It's that no one has been able to share with me why they disagree. And no one has been able to tell me exactly why I'm an ass except that I don't agree with them and I have reasons and explainations behind my views and they don't. So, they get defensive but have no defense. All they can do is call names now and tell me to shut up.

[dogchow108]

The MJ debate wasn't to point out shortcomings of anyone. It was defending a guy who has yet to be proven one way or the other, but has more evidance in his favor. And besides this it was to show that people were making jokes about the lives of certain children who may have been hurt. Is this disrespectful? No one has been able to speak their side but only call me an ass and this and that.

And with Doc, it's not so much a personal thing with him. I don't care who it is. I'm not disrespecting the person. It's that monks, the temple, an entire religion was carelessly disrespected. That alone isn't much of a big deal. But then a religious ceremony took place disrespectfully, and then it's all passed on a large website for everyone to learn from. If you are interested in martial arts, it's cool. You don't have to be a Buddhist. But Shao Lin is above all a Buddhist temple. Any of you would be unhappy if someone came into your place of religious practice and went through the ceremonies and totally disrespected the whole thing and blew it off just to share some experiences and inside stories on a friggen website.

The thing I don't quite get is how I'm a jackass who doesn't like to be disagreed with. It's that no one has been able to share with me why they disagree. And no one has been able to tell me exactly why I'm an ass except that I don't agree with them and I have reasons and explainations behind my views and they don't. So, they get defensive but have no defense. All they can do is call names now and tell me to shut up.

Bullshit! You have, in this passage, shown that you not only do not listen to what is said to you but that you forget your own words. You judged us AND Doc without knowing why we say what we say. You literally said everyone on the thread is a fool. your own words, XJ, and it is because i know you are smart enough to realize this that leaves me no alternative than to say that your attempt to escape what you said is a croc of shit. Also, where has Doc disrespected Buddhism? where has he gotten up and said he does not respect buddhism. In fact, where has he done anythign disrespectful? If beibng belligerant and criticizing people outgoingly is his disrespect to buddhism then you are just as guilty of being an ass. He dosent go around and tell you how buddhist to be, and YES YOU WERE doing a "good-buddhist-bad-buddhist" scene here, dont even try to deny it. And he HAS done more than you to help shaolin and Shaolin Chan Buddhism. What do you do, criticize some guy you dont know over the internet? Chicken shit! He brings these guys over to the US and provides them with work and a place to stay. XingWei has gotten an opportunity from Doc that scarcely has a person from DengFeng China ever gotten. It has cost Doc more money than you may ever earn. You really dont know shit, yo. He simply has his own way of pointing out some very meaningful trends and makes VERY good points about how these people in shaolin who are supposed to be the keepers of the faith have become corrupt government drones. and much like you, he dosent hold back one ounce of venom. This is his website, and his perspective which I am greatly thankful to have. You simply cant handle it, and its sad.

PS: I'm drunk. but that really means nothing more than that im not gonna hold back. Hell, you dont.

[xing_jian108]

I didn't deny I called people ignorant fools. I said it and I gave my explaination. Everyone else just called me names because they had no other defense.

My words about Doc were not just ideas I got from the way he talks. There was an article he wrote and posted on this site somewhere. It was when I first read that article a long time ago that I felt he had very little respect for Buddhism in the way he explained he gave no sh!t about the disciple ceremony, but just enjoyed martial arts and bringing all of that "Shaolin mystery" to USA and the world through this website. But as I said, Shao Lin Temple is above all a Buddhist temple, which he totally blew off. It should never be left out or disrespected in it's importance.

Now, everyone has seen my points, seen my explainations. I'm still being called names rather than given explainations of how I'm wrong since they don't agree. Somehow still I'm a self-righteous asshole and I don't like it when people don't agree with me. I'd really like it if people had ANY sort of explaination for me. When you have no defense I can't expect more than to be called names and have my title changed to "ret law" because your ignorant group of buddies will think it's funny.

[dogchow108]

Now, everyone has seen my points, seen my explainations. I'm still being called names rather than given explainations of how I'm wrong since they don't agree. Somehow still I'm a self-righteous asshole and I don't like it when people don't agree with me. I'd really like it if people had ANY sort of explaination for me. When you have no defense I can't expect more than to be called names and have my title changed to "ret law" because your ignorant group of buddies will think it's funny.

Again, your arguement has critical errors in it.

You assume you have explained yourself. You have not. In fact, the most specific thing you have done is make a vague reference to a thread somwhere in this monster of a website. You have generally described Doc to be disrespectful to Buddhists. You have, essentially, done something as helpful to your point as maturbate on your keyboard. Have you been reading what you have been writing?

Not only that but you claim over and over that people havent explained their reasoning when they have. Over and over. They have explained to you that your generalizations about the ppl on the forum were unbased. I explained to you that "guilty" is a technical term, and is a far cry from a word that describes without a doubt whether you really did something or not. People have explained to you that you are holding us to a double standard with the Buddhism preaching. You have, in practice, done nothing but call us names for not even disagreeing with you, but for coming to the conclusions we have come to regardless. To criticize people for coming to a decision and then hoping the Jury will decide accordingly is ego. And not very buddhist.

Doc might not be perfect, and I understand that some people arent really mature enough to take some of what he says with good humor and just see past the written letters. Really, its fine but as mentioned again and again: this page is his PERSPECTIVE. You have yet to explain yourself better than you claim we have explained ourselves. I mean shit, i voted Jackson be found Non-guilty. With the amount of reasoning i gave for it (much less than the dissertation you expect from the people wanting him found "guilty") you should include me in the "Ignorant fools" section. But I dont think you did. and i think that deep down it is because I seemed to agree with you. Cheap. You're better than that. And to criticize Doc is fine. Trust me when I say i believe in democracy. But if you are going to blast the guy the way you have been, you need to do better than what you have in terms of explaining yourself before telling others they should do so. And that is my main problem here, is that you have said things about this guy which are a testimony of extreme ginorance on your part. Again, you're better than that. Or so I think.

[xing_jian108]

I have explained my arguments on MJ's trial and why I think he is not guilty, and then why I hope he is not guilty. The people saying he is guilty and making cheap jokes about him did not give me their reasons. They just went on with their jokes and had absolutely nothing to say in explaination of their case. Their jokes then turned toward me. I gave explainations, they didn't. And, dogchow, why would I debate with you if you already think he is not guilty? I was trying to debate with those who had different views than I had. None of them had a defense though.

I understand Doc's humor. I know you all enjoy. I do sometimes too when I read it. I like the site and that's why I come here. As I said, my words were not personal attacks on Doc as a person, but on certain things he has done. I'm not worried about who the person is and I know he has done many respectable things. I just felt he totally disrespected the monks, the temple, and Buddhism itself. He didn't have to go that far but disrespectfully chose to. This is my only beef with him, and I think he should either try to become Buddhist or take back his vows. At least don't openly disrespect it that way. Shao Lin is a Buddhist temple and a website dedicated to all things Shao Lin should include that with respect. Don't agree with this last sentence?

If I find that article I'm referring to, I will post the link so my words don't seem to come out my ass...

[doc]

5000 more DD's on GUILTY!

And 10 on "not guilty".

(I'm trying to be a better Buddhist).

[blooming tianshi lotus]

Can you spare it with your 7220 for a start and and second, acknowledge the attemp of betterment and now you forced me into it , go ahead and just take my last 500 . Another hit for not guilty!


cheers

BL

[xing_jian108]

You see, nothing personal on you. That one actually made me laugh.

But on a serious note, do you consider yourself a Buddhist at all?

[dogchow108]

And, dogchow, why would I debate with you if you already think he is not guilty?

Because i had no reasoning in my post, just like all the people who voted him guilty. Just some people who thought he was guilty were a little less than sensitive because they dont feel they had to be. And they have ebery right to make jokes, because this is the Internet and if anyone should be able to express themselves however they want to, especially when it comes to jokes, they should be able to. I imagine that If i thought he was guilty as hell and i was fed up with him getting away with doing things to children, i would be just as insensitive. You think these guys are bad? You should hear some of my baby jokes.

As for the thing with Doc, again, i think it is unwarranted but what can I do. You have still not proven your point about him, and especially to those of us who know the guy IRL. But if anything, I'm glad this has just degraded to another one of those scenes like the "Qi" thing.

[onesp1ng]

Actually it just appears that he thinks he knows a great deal about a lot of things, is highly educated, and hopes to push opinions on others. Later when people disagree or find contradictions in his arguments, he simply changes his original argument to suit the situation, and so on.

..........simply amazing..........

Xing, is this some sort of language gap? I mean, please read what others are saying. Twice.

Dogchow elaborated on some points very clearly, yet you continue your mighty fight for truth and liberty, mixed with contradiction and error.

Who are you? What have you done and how do you define what a person should be in regards to Buddhism and Shaolin?

You are quite like those who say you must be Christian or risk burning hell...

g

[xing_jian108]

Dogchow, whether or not you have explainations to back up your views on MJs trial is something I don't even concern myself with because I was looking to debate with those who have opposite views as mine. What do I have to debate with you on? It doesn't make sense to debate with you. I wasn't looking for those who don't have explainations no matter the side. I was debating with those who say opposite as what I say and hear their explainations if they have any at all. This is how court goes. Prosecution doesn't debate other prosecutioners in the same trial. Defense doesn't debate with other defense members. Their goal is to debate the opposite side and win their case.

Onespr1ng, in what way am I like a Christian who says if you don't follow my belief then you burn in hell? I have said over and over that you can like gong fu and not be Buddhist. I didn't ask anyone to be Buddhist. In fact, I said if you aren't Buddhist then don't even concern yourself with my discussion on Buddhism. I was talking to someone who was supposed to be a Buddhist disciple. Why are you butting in saying I am pushing views on you when I told you not to concern yourself if you aren't Buddhist? That's intelligent of you. You just like to get in on the fun of making me seem like an ass. Go away.

But if you have questions on my views of Buddhism and what a Buddhist should be like, I'll tell you. It's not so much what a Buddhist should be like. Because I don't think Doc is a Buddhist at all. Either you are or you aren't. There is no "good Buddhist, bad Buddhist" like everyone is saying, or putting the words in my mouth. It's either you are or you aren't. Doc has taken vows to his masters, the temple, the Buddha, etc.. But he didn't care what it meant. He didn't even understand what was happening until the ceremony was ended and someone told him he was Buddhist now. He was like... ok. So, now his actions aren't actions of a "bad Buddhist". They are actions of someone who would normally become a Buddhist after having taken the vows and all. But he didn't know or care what it was about. So, he's not a Buddhist and my words aren't about his actions after the ceremony. Because he is not a Buddhist. I have nothing to say about his choices now unless he is still pretending to be Buddhist. As I've been saying, my only beef with him is that he went through a religious ceremony and took vows that he didn't know or care about. I think it's very disrespectful. Anyone else would be unhappy if someone came into their religous place and did their ceremonies and all and then didn't give a sh!t about them, totally blowing them off with no ounce of respect for it.

[plumflower_pm]

so far, your process of debate has been based on "because I said so". I have actually presented some prior charges and MJ's actual response to those charges. You've been told about other activities that are being presented in the trial, but you really haven't given us any information that directly refutes any of that.


_______________________

If you say to someone 'I'm a Buddhist' all sorts of assumptions are made about you based on a knowledge of Buddhism or lack of knowledge. At once you are labeled, categorized, conceptually pinned like a dead butterfly in a glass cabinet.

I"m not Buddhist, But I thought being a Buddhist was a process rather than something fixed. It is not knowing everything or having all the answers. Isn't it the exact contrary to that? Its starting point, it seems to me, is humility before the complexity of life. It's also about being human and accepting one's own failings and the failings of others.

What if someone goes through a religious ceremony just to learn more about that religion objectively? I can't imagine anyone would take offense at someone wanting a better understanding of any religion. Your attitude confounds me.

[xing_jian108]

You are the only one who shared explainations of your views on the case. But most of the things you shared have already been proven untrue or impossible to have happened, or simply just talk. mjjsource.com has a membership there where you can get all the latest news the moment it happens. If something is good, you get the full story with nothing changed or left out. If something is bad, you also get the full story. Unlike other news, nothing is left out or changed in anyway. If there was something that was proven untrue, it won't be the title of a headline just to make you think it's true without reading the article first. No silly stuff like that. There are plenty of MJ websites that have access to these news articles for free. I suggest reading them rather than yahoo news. You'll get the news even if it is terrible news for MJ. You get the full story, unbiased.

We weren't discussing what Buddhism is. This isn't the case because the person we were discussing isn't even Buddhist. There wouldn't be a problem if this person watched the ceremony to understand more about it and bring that information to the world via a website. But that person would of course be expected to do it respectfully. In the case at hand, this person actually participated in the ceremony which makes you a Buddhist disciple, but cared nothing about what it meant and totally disrespected it and blew it off, then came online to share a story about how one goes about becoming Buddhist. This is taking advantage of the monks, their temple, and disrespecting Buddhism, just for a story to add to his website. He didn't even bother to find out exactly what everything meant before he did it. He just wanted an experience to share to people. This isn't respectful in anyway and of course no one would be pleased with it.

[plumflower_pm]

You are naive. There is no such thing as unbiased news, most especially on the internet. I got the news that I shared here from CNN and the new york times, reputable but still, not without bias.

And on the other issue, I don't know Doc nor have I heard his version of why he chose to become a bhuddist disciple. I am sure he is not the first person to experience a different outcome from that experience than the monks ideally intend. It is never a waste of thier time to potentially bring someone into the fold, it is thier job and deepend thier faith regardless of what each individual brings to, or takes from , the temple.

So I think we'd best agree to disagree on that.