Le sigh....sadly I am somehow still amazed at the goings on in this thread.
Mr. Rosenberg,
You don't seem to understand that ultimately what everyone else is saying is true: it doesn't matter who Mike Eskin is. It really doesn't. To the best of my knowledge he's a guy, he fenced for UMass in college and spent some time fencing for Pris de Fer under Dave Blake and (I think) Gamal Mahmoud. At some point (mostly after college?) he started fencing saber. The saber he does mostly with Ariana Klinkov. He is a referee. As with many referees, we can all probably remember days/times when he sucked and days/times when he's been pretty damn good. Overall he's honest and respectable (hell, that's the most you can ask for of most people). Note I bolded the word people; it's an important word. Generally we use it to note some hazy intrinsic quality of persons that entitles to certain basic levels of treatment. Also not the honest and respectable part....especially the respectable. Mike doesn't have to be important, correct, or all knowing...hell, a fair number of people think he has far too much of a tendency to be a pompous, insuferable, asshole but still we can mostly respect him as a person b/c he treats people reasonably and tries to show some semblance of respect as well. If it makes you feel better that he's never been ranked in the top 16 of the Senior/Div 1 standings, or that he's never been an athlete at World Cups or Grands Prix tournaments, or that he's a little overweight then fine; that's your perrogative. However, please don't be confused when we all tell you that none of the above is relevant to the topic at hand. You might be the best fencer since sliced bread (or Aldo Nadi or [pick a fencer here]); you might be a huge deal around fencing; you might be right about everything you've ever said with respects to Andrea Lagan, Nancy Anderson, Beth and Bill Ward and anyone else ever...that doesn't make it ok to go about insulting the appearance of someone's wife, or calling names. If you're even an eighth as important as you seem to think you are or even vaguely as intelligent as you seem to think you are then you're probably not 6yrs old. Want to knock someone off their high horse? Tell us why they're wrong; enlighten us on how they've been apologist for x,y, or z and what they've done to hinder fencing while you've been endeavoring to help it. Calling names based on physical appearances is nothing but hurtful, tasteless, and classless (especially when you can't even hide behind the fragile pane of "responding in kind"). Tell us something useful about USFA politics, or why someone without international results should unquestioningly defer to you (if that's what you believe) or why you're pedigree as a fencer is pertinent. Whatever you do, do us all a favor and try to be at least a minimally decent person when you do it. It doesn't take a pedigree of any sort to do that.
__________________ I now dangle to the left....my tassle. Get your minds out of the gutter.
"Martin was not an optimist; he was a prisoner of hope." Optimism is about assuming there's evidence that justifies your outlook while hope is about creating the evidence and procuring your own happiness or vision of the world. - Professor West
I do not agree. In his frequent posts, he has positioned himself as something of a pundit: on USFA politics, the world of fencing, even civility. I have never hidden my identity because I am not afraid to take ownership of my ideas and actions. Anyone with a clue about US fencing and a marginal sense of history knows what I have accomplished.
And guess what: all opinions are not created equal; if I wanted a tactical analysis of a specific epeeist, I would value the input of Kornel Udvarhelyi far more than Epee-Mike. He can claim moral superiority, strap a convenient label on me, condemn my lack of civility, but in the end, that's just petty posturing. We are defined by the actions we have taken - not in some chat room - but in the real world.
So I ask you once again, Epee Mike, who are you really? What have you actually done? Maybe you are afraid of being outed after all.
I think between heretic and EM there is a rather wide disparity of age. One might even say a gulf of age.
So perhaps heretic might rather say, "What has EM done yet?"
Heretic says everyone knows what he has done in fencing. Well, maybe everyone in Noo Yawk knows what he has done, but Noo Yawk is no longer the only place in the US where there is fencing. He has been on committees and very active in Noo Yawk in the past but what is he doing now? I looked all through the USFA web site and didn't find much there now.
For me, EM is a local boy. I have even fenced Epee against him, I believe before he ever competed in Sabre. I have a good idea of what he has done and how well he does it. For one thing he has stepped in to provide continuity to a fencing program that was one of less than a handful of HS fencing programs in New England from 30 years ago.
I believe you, heretic, were for a long time associated the Fencers Club so perhaps you can appreciate that it is significant to provide continuity for a long tradition of fencing. I benefitted from your activities by attending the Solti summer fencing camp in Hungary in 1999. Thank you.
One might ask where do I get off lecturing heretic? Well, I believe I am older than he is, have been a soldier in the fencing trenches in New England for 20 years and have an FIE Gold Medal.
__________________
Anyone giving odds that I don't change out my Xmas avatar for another year?
Le sigh....sadly I am somehow still amazed at the goings on in this thread.
Mr. Rosenberg,
You don't seem to understand that ultimately what everyone else is saying is true: it doesn't matter who Mike Eskin is. It really doesn't. To the best of my knowledge he's a guy, he fenced for UMass in college and spent some time fencing for Pris de Fer under Dave Blake and (I think) Gamal Mahmoud. At some point (mostly after college?) he started fencing saber. The saber he does mostly with Ariana Klinkov. He is a referee. As with many referees, we can all probably remember days/times when he sucked and days/times when he's been pretty damn good. Overall he's honest and respectable (hell, that's the most you can ask for of most people). Note I bolded the word people; it's an important word. Generally we use it to note some hazy intrinsic quality of persons that entitles to certain basic levels of treatment. Also not the honest and respectable part....especially the respectable. Mike doesn't have to be important, correct, or all knowing...hell, a fair number of people think he has far too much of a tendency to be a pompous, insuferable, asshole but still we can mostly respect him as a person b/c he treats people reasonably and tries to show some semblance of respect as well. If it makes you feel better that he's never been ranked in the top 16 of the Senior/Div 1 standings, or that he's never been an athlete at World Cups or Grands Prix tournaments, or that he's a little overweight then fine; that's your perrogative. However, please don't be confused when we all tell you that none of the above is relevant to the topic at hand. You might be the best fencer since sliced bread (or Aldo Nadi or [pick a fencer here]); you might be a huge deal around fencing; you might be right about everything you've ever said with respects to Andrea Lagan, Nancy Anderson, Beth and Bill Ward and anyone else ever...that doesn't make it ok to go about insulting the appearance of someone's wife, or calling names. If you're even an eighth as important as you seem to think you are or even vaguely as intelligent as you seem to think you are then you're probably not 6yrs old. Want to knock someone off their high horse? Tell us why they're wrong; enlighten us on how they've been apologist for x,y, or z and what they've done to hinder fencing while you've been endeavoring to help it. Calling names based on physical appearances is nothing but hurtful, tasteless, and classless (especially when you can't even hide behind the fragile pane of "responding in kind"). Tell us something useful about USFA politics, or why someone without international results should unquestioningly defer to you (if that's what you believe) or why you're pedigree as a fencer is pertinent. Whatever you do, do us all a favor and try to be at least a minimally decent person when you do it. It doesn't take a pedigree of any sort to do that.
executive summary: if you're a jerk, it doesn't matter how right you are, people will still dislike you and distrust what you're saying.
Overall he's honest and respectable (hell, that's the most you can ask for of most people). Note I bolded the word people; it's an important word. Generally we use it to note some hazy intrinsic quality of persons that entitles to certain basic levels of treatment. Also not the honest and respectable part....especially the respectable. Mike doesn't have to be important, correct, or all knowing...hell, a fair number of people think he has far too much of a tendency to be a pompous, insuferable, asshole but still we can mostly respect him as a person b/c he treats people reasonably and tries to show some semblance of respect as well.
And, to further note, when he knows he can't be particularly nice to someone who hasn't really done anything mean or bad or wrong, he keeps quiet. If he thinks someone's out of line, he'll speak up. If he's just kind of annoyed, or thinks you're a terrible ref, or a bad fencer..... he's be very quiet and try to find something to say that's true. It's both more productive and destructive at the same time. You'd do well to learn a little bit of.. what was that word..... oh yes, tact.
heretic--- you don't seem to get the fact that we honestly do want to hear your critiques of the process, since you obviously have some opinions and some experience. but time and time again we're finding that based on your personal attacks and stalker creepy weirdness, you totally interfere with our being able to take anything you say as useful information.
You're doing so much more for the side you claim to be against that I wonder what's really going on-- are your allegiances as you claim? are you actually the person you claim to be? are you off your medication? I just can't believe that we have the whole story here.
While we're throwing around names-- you don't have to be Delia Turner. I swear that woman can come up with something incredibly nice (and true!) about just about anyone. But you can be just nice enough to not shoot yourself in the head with your arguments.
__________________
Visit my non-fencing blog, mostly about food, at Coset The Table!
I'm trying to find out who this person is. He opines with great authority, so is it all that unreasonable to ask for his existential credentials? Why is that so threatening?
I meant broader than that. What are you trying to accomplish posting on the boards, and in this thread in particular?
Why is that so threatening? (Nope, that question doesn't make sense in my post either.)
I appreciate your effort, and I will do the rest on my own. I can ask Ben Bratton and Dwight Smith if they have seen him fence. Peter Brand can tell me all about his rep in the Boston area. Maybe Jeff Bukantz (yes, the much maligned Jeff Bukantz) has seen him ref.
Thanks for your help.
Seeing as Jeff invited him to ref at NCAA he must feel he is a decent ref.
__________________
Go to the well until the well is dry. When the well is dry find a new well.
First, hi Bill Hall, I haven't heard from you in a long time. You remember Szombathley. Perhaps you forgot that I invited veteran fencers like yourself to participate at the camp and accorded you a proper level of respect while you bemoaned the USFA's contemptuous attitude toward your constituency. I opened up that camp to any fencers, even those who didn't live in "Noo Yawk;" Andrea's pride and joy, Andras Horanyi, for example.
Yes, I've attacked the USFA apparatchiks with great vitriol. Why? Because they never responded to reasonable inquiries or alternate ideas. It took 12 years before a USFA administration finally implemented my plan for regionalization. Now, Andrea and Ro Solbavarro, who initially opposed the concept, are taking credit for it.
I am a proud member of the lunatic fringe, and I have nothing to apologize for.
Don't worry, epeeemike, I won't stalk you. I have better things to do.
First, hi Bill Hall, I haven't heard from you in a long time. You remember Sombathley. Perhaps you forgot that I invited veteran fencers like yourself to participate at the camp and accorded you a proper level of respect while you bemoaned the USFA's contemptuous attitude toward your constituancy. I opened up that camp to any fencers, even those who didn't live in "Noo Yawk;" Andrea's pride and joy, Andras Horanyi, for example.
Yes, I've attacked the USFA apparatchicks with great vitriol. Why? Because they never responded to reasonable inquiries or alternate ideas. It took 12 years before a USFA administration finally implimented my plan for regionalization. Now, Andrea and Ro Solbavarro, who initially opposed the concept, are taking credit for it.
I am a proud member of the lunatic fringe, and i have nothing to apologize for.
Don't worry, epeeemike, I won't stalk you. I have better things to do.
i fail to see what this has to do with anything said in the last page or two of the thread, except that bill said something.
running back to the tried and true "i've done so much for fencing" and "i told you there was a problem before but noone listened" combo defense.
we would all love to hear about issues with the usfa and your experience. we do not want to hear about how great you are or how right you were, nor does anyone on the board (yourself included, i'm guessing) want to suffer personal attacks. please, stick to the information, or your opinions backed with data. consider yourself writing a scientific paper and us the review board. putting in opinion without the backing facts will look bad, and citing yourself in the sources won't fly either.
I do state facts. Example: on a different thread, I stated that Keeth Smart told me Bukantz was instrumental in getting Poz's 45th touch thrown out in the men's saber team event; then someone argues that his review of the video indicates that was impossible. I actually spoke to the person standing on the strip at the time, and yet some CSI wannabe is telling me I am changing the facts.
Uh-uh. If you want to evaluate arguments on line, you have to be able to evaluate the credibility of the source; which is why I wanted to know exactly who epeemike was.
Ironically, this issue was touched off when Papa Ward decided to point out a spelling error (roll/role); something truly germane to the issue on the table. If he can dish it out....
Ironically, this issue was touched off when Papa Ward decided to point out a spelling error (roll/role); something truly germane to the issue on the table. If he can dish it out....
So wordplay based on typos and personal insults are on the same level?
If you pick something out of this post that I misspell I could call you a douchebag troll and it would be OK because you decided to make a play on my mistake?
I do state facts. Example: on a different thread, I stated that Keeth Smart told me Bukantz was instrumental in getting Poz's 45th touch thrown out in the men's saber team event; then someone argues that his review of the video indicates that was impossible. I actually spoke to the person standing on the strip at the time, and yet some CSI wannabe is telling me I am changing the facts.
And had you simply said you were there, two pages of this thread would have been obviated, and most would have believed you without any debate. And in fact, I bet most did believe you (I did). You just decided to let the CSI wannabe get under your skin. Wouldn't you rather focus on what's important?
The weird thing is, I bet a bunch of people would value your perspective (whether they agree with it or not) if you just dropped the petty grade school theatrics and focused on the issues that really matter.
The weird thing is, I bet a bunch of people would value your perspective (whether they agree with it or not) if you just dropped the petty grade school theatrics and focused on the issues that really matter.
To paraphrase the redoubtable epeemike, visitors to chat-land are free to value my perspective as they choose. Most poster-children come to this venue with a fixed mind-set and strong allegiances, so change is really not an option. I'm shooting at the silent majority, the causal visitor who doesn't express a POV on line. I started posting when the recall effort began to get out the word. The vitriol and personal attacks I encountered were not unexpected; but I wasn't going to walk away from the fight. It’s a curiosity how some individuals seem to play out their entire lives in these chat rooms, how posting gives them such an inflated sense of self importance. I value my real-life friends in the fencing community. The denizens of this odd little universe are nothing more than ghosts in the machine.
To paraphrase the redoubtable epeemike, visitors to chat-land are free to value my perspective as they choose.
I'm interested on your perspective on fencing, not your perspective on other people. You're not writing about fencing, you're throwing tantrums. And you're even proud of the tantrum which baffles me. I believe you have much better things to be proud of, yet you choose to focus on the bile. Good luck with that.
To paraphrase the redoubtable epeemike, visitors to chat-land are free to value my perspective as they choose. Most poster-children come to this venue with a fixed mind-set and strong allegiances, so change is really not an option. I'm shooting at the silent majority, the causal visitor who doesn't express a POV on line. I started posting when the recall effort began to get out the word. The vitriol and personal attacks I encountered were not unexpected; but I wasn't going to walk away from the fight. It’s a curiosity how some individuals seem to play out their entire lives in these chat rooms, how posting gives them such an inflated sense of self importance. I value my real-life friends in the fencing community. The denizens of this odd little universe are nothing more than ghosts in the machine.
and now that you're being confronted, deride the entire community and dismiss it as insignificant. good choice, classy move. also a fallacious assumption, of course. i won't even bother to defend the community, as it doesn't need defending.
i'll say it again, if you want to be treated nicely, stop being a jerk, looking down your nose at the people who post here, and needlessly namedropping. be constructive and informative, not bombastic and antagonistic. if you think this community is worthless, then get the hell out, we don't need another troll.
I'm shooting at the silent majority, the causal visitor who doesn't express a POV on line.
Well, this member of the mostly silent majority is doing what she should have done a long time ago and putting you on her ignore list. I'm sure I'm not the first. The minor pieces of information and informed perspective that you bring are buried in sludge and tend to drag any thread you post in down the gutter. Pretty sad, since it would be nice to have informed debate.
wow; I have only 225 in five years; I'm practically a mute.
With the guardians of etiquette trying to chase me out of the neighborhood, who knows how much longer I can last? I wouldn't want to lower the level of discourse now, would I?
Linear Mode
