If you're just joining us and don't follow online martial politicking, you may be wondering what this incredibly long article is about.  Shorthand Empty Hand is not without its detractors.  At a site where critics of me and this program gather to share their hatred of me, an amusing essay denouncing the Shorthand Empty Hand textbook was posted prominently.  I consider the criticisms it contains beneath me, for the most part, but responding to them is both a stimulating exercise in rhetoric and a means of promoting the book while entertaining the reader.  Enjoy.

These are the honest – and obviously heartfelt – words of the man or woman posting as "JKDChick" at the Internet's preeminent troll site, Bullshido. I don't think it would be unfair or immodest of me to characterize myself as the most-discussed individual on the site, eclipsing far more deserving and far more famous martial arts personalities. One sub-forum of the site is (or was) named after my first martial arts text; I've been sent downloaded graphics indicating that I did or do have my own icon there (a cute little smiley face with glasses and a goatee); I am the subject of countless angry threads there in which I am ridiculed and excoriated. It's obvious that I – little or, okay, not so little me – occupy the conscience of the Internet's largest group of would-be martial arts police, whose wildly inflated estimate of the importance and significance of their favorite site is matched only by the vast gulf that yawns between what they think they know about the martial arts and what they actually know.

Given "JKDChick's" pithy condemnations, you might be asking yourself just how accurate could be the commentary wrapped around them. The answer is, of course, not very – but when your explicit and avowed purpose in writing your screed is simply to bitch about someone whom you "despise," it's difficult not to meet, at the very least, your realistically low goals.

In an attempt to address as much of this polemic as possible – even containing, as it does, one or two begrudging compliments – I will go back to the beginning and address it point by point. Quoted text from the file, which was a "front page" essay on the aptly titled BS-do website, appears here in purple.  I am quoting from it, rather than reproducing all of it. One hopes the shield of "fair use" behind which the Bullshido forum membership hides its thefts of copyrighted material from others' websites (for the purpose of reproducing and ridiculing it at the forum) will afford me similar (if equally disingenuous) aegis.

Before I do, however, allow me to indulge in the rather arrogant act of quoting myself. Before "JKDChick's" poison penmanship was brought to my attention, I – at The Martialist's discussion forum and in a rare moment of clarity, insight, and prescience – wrote this of critics of Shorthand Empty Hand:

Criticism of the book invariably centers on whether the critic grants his permission or approval (neither of which I require) for the existence of the book. ...Those few who've actually attempted substantive critiques of the book have either stated the obvious ("it's short," which of course it is, or "it's basic and for beginners," which of course it also is) or complained about the book I didn't write ("the book doesn't have this and this, so it's wrong or bad"). The fact is that the material in the text is simple enough – and fundamental enough – that no one with any sense should be able to take any real issue with it.

...To date, no one has ever managed a reasonable critique of my work that dealt with the content of that work – for those that tried I could refute easily. Why do you think I have published point-counterpoint editorials at The Martialist? When someone actually bothers to argue content, it's very easy to state your case and defend what you believe in order to refute their criticisms.

No, it is much easier – and intellectually bankrupt – simply to bitch and moan about the source of the material in question, whining that he or she should not have produced the material in the first place...

The fact that such a large body of people spend so much time worrying about what I do tells me all I need to know about the significance of my work. The fact that they cannot then address the content of that work and must instead attack me as a person tells me all I need to know about the validity of their complaints.

"For those that believe no explanation is necessary," said Joseph Dunninger. "For those who do not, none will suffice."

Few quotes come more readily to mind when wading through "JKDChick's" vitriolic denunciation. To such people, every honest exposition – no matter how earnest – is an excuse. To such people, every thoughtful disclosure – no matter how full – is a rationalization. It is with this in mind that we must read "JKDChick's" vehement, insulting, and admittedly biased missive. A more cynical man might wonder just why a martial artist and author of relatively minor stature would rate such obsessive attention – attention that is obsessive by the writer's own admission. It would be relatively easy to dismiss this with a Randian shrug of one's shoulders, consigning it to the dustbin labeled "Miserable people with poor self-images hate and envy those who accomplish, who succeed, and who produce." I don't know that I'm willing to let poor "JKDChick" go that easily, however. It is too seldom that I indulge, these productive and sleep-deprived days, in the pseudonymous point-by-point rebuttal I enjoyed so much in the dark, ancient days of the UseNet message boards. Forgive me, then, as I step on the young (old?) lady's (?) feelings in addressing this poorly conceived mess:

We begin with the long awaited article: “Shorthand Empty Hand™: This is NOT a ‘review’”. Basically, it’s a catharsis. After this, I should be done.

It is and was a mark of Internet trolls to announce, pointedly and repeatedly, that one is done with a given argument or conversation. This is because petty and insecure people – people not very sure of what they believe, do, or are – need desperately to get the last word. Preemptively getting the last word is no different, though indicates a level of premeditation that betrays one's lack of faith in the veracity of one's argument. The entity known as "JKDChick" goes on to announce that he, she, or it is not impartial where I am concerned. Here I don't think it would be unreasonable of me to conclude that 'despising' me might have something to do with this lack of objectivity.

I despise the guy. I didn’t used to. Back when Bullshido was shiny and new ...I quite liked Sharp Phil. ...Since then, we’ve had a public falling out of course – or rather, Phil fell out with Bullshido – and all those little niggling problems, issues, discrepancies that I’d blinded myself to started to jump up and down in my peripheral vision, waving tiny red flags.

This is an imaginative revision of history. Years ago, before The Martialist was born, I maintained a martial arts section at PhilElmore.com. It was there that I wrote and published my first product reviews and editorials. It was there that often-cited articles like my troll guide and How to Spot a Virtual Tough Guy (the VTG article appeared in the Electronic Journal of Martial Arts and Sciences) were first made publicly available. (It is a point of very personal satisfaction to me that some of the people who criticize me online even use the terminology that I popularized in those martial-arts-troll-related articles.)

It was at PhilElmore.com that I first started receiving and publicly posting hate mail, too. I even maintained, briefly, and entire list of sites I thought worth avoiding as a waste of time. All of this activity was part of my fascination with "Antrollpology" – the psychology of Internet pretenders and disruptors.

Around that time, a friend referred me to the Bullshido website, which I think was still known as "McDojo" at that time (the name was changed to avoid a lawsuit from the McDonalds people, I am told). My friend figured that I would enjoy a site whose mission statement was the outing of fakes, frauds, and scams.

An interesting concept with an awful execution.

I participated at the site for a time and eventually – long before anyone knew who I was in the martial arts world online, much less cared – gave it up as a lost cause and a waste of time, for obvious reasons. A heavily trafficked forum full of angry and ignorant children swearing and lying at and to one another is not what I envision when I think of peer review and community-policing in the self-defense industry. I added the site to my list of sites to avoid and promptly forgot about it.

Not long after that, Neal "Phrost" Fletcher – the owner of Bullshido – contacted me via e-mail, complaining about the listing. He didn't think it a fair assessment of his community, about which he has (in my opinion) the most overblown sense of self-importance under which I have ever seen anyone labor. I don't remember exactly what I wrote to him, but I'm sure it was something along the lines that I thought his site overrun with loud kids who didn't know nearly as much as they thought they knew.

I don't think poor Neal ever forgave me for thinking less of his website than does he. Since then, he's had plenty of negative things to say about me publicly. I picture him lying awake at night, tossing and turning, thinking, "Somewhere in North America there is a fat, balding writer with an Accounting degree who doesn't think much of my site! Can you believe it?"

Since that time, of course, I've risen to some notoriety in the martial arts community. The Martialist is tremendously popular and logs high activity even when it is not updated with new material. My writing has been featured in several 'zines and in more than one hardcopy publication, such as Concealed Carry magazine. One of my essays was included in the extremely popular and prestigious collection, Warriors: On Living with Courage, Discipline, and Honor. Google the name "Phil Elmore" and you'll be amazed at the number of hits. I can say with complete honesty that this is due at least in part to the obsessive complaints of my critics, who absolutely cannot stand the fact that I am a private citizen and an ordinary man writing about self-defense. To such people, the success of someone who lacks no special credentials (and whose success thus shames them by comparison) is an intolerable affront.

I still remember when I was informed that I and "my" discussion forum had an entire FAQ file at Bullshido. Clearly, in the time since dismissing the forum as insignificant, I had come to much prominence in the minds of those still slumming there. Fast-forward to the dawn of 2006 and I'm supposed to be some sort of bitter reject from Bullshido, who "fell out" with the site and was driven from it, according to the revised story. The truth is far different – but what does the truth matter when attacking someone out of hatred?

Phil once wrote an article about the best way to store rattan Kali sticks so that they didn’t warp like they do lying flat. ...Then [the awful truth about Phil Elmore's all-consuming evil, one presumes] struck me: I’d never noticed my sticks warping because mine always wear out before they can warp.

The conclusion the reader should reach, in the hate-addled brain of "JKDChick," is that I must never actually train with my sticks because they're sitting around warping (or rather, would be warping if I did not lovingly string them up to prevent this). Setting aside for a moment the fact that my admirer describes as lengthy and detailed an article that is really quite brief ("A Quick Tip for Hanging Sticks" was the original title, I think), one has to wonder how much training with sticks he or she actually does.

Most practitioners of such arts with whom I've worked end up accumulating quite a pile of sticks – cheap ones, nice ones, special ones, and even metal ones. At the time of writing that article I had a bag of "working sticks" that I carried in the trunk of my car so I would have them for class. The rest of my sticks – the ones staged for future use (or, in the case of a couple of unique carved sticks I picked up in a martial arts store, left to hang as the martial arts equivalent of "safe queens" that are just too nice to use) – I wanted to keep as straight as possible before I got around to using, fraying, and discarding them.

Call me obsessive compulsive, but when a stick starts to fray I don't want to use it anymore. This is because when I got my first training in sticks while training in Chidokwan Karate in college, our sticks bag was a big communal canvas sack full of sticks that were more duct tape than they were rattan. Each class, those that reached the bag first got the ones that were still decent, while those that got there after them made do with sticky masses of gray vinyl that might once have been escrima. At the time, I – a college student with little disposable income not already earmarked for knives, swords, and pizza – vowed I would one day own an impressive collection of high-quality, well-maintained sticks.

Training in sticks with my friend Kevin (right).

Since that time I've given up on hanging the sticks or on maintaining a collection. I use them, break them, and then replace them with sticks of good quality. The bag in my trunk has changed, but there's still a bag there. The rest of my cheaper sticks ended up in the garage somewhere, to be pulled out – warped and dusty – when I need a substitute for whatever reason.

None of this could be known by "JKDChick," of course, unless he, she, or it was hiding in the bushes watching me (which, come to think of it, isn't all that unlikely). It doesn't matter that I've since written multiple articles on sticks and swords and published pictures taken in public settings of me training in just that. What would "JKDChick" care if I showed him, her, or it pictures of me training with respected instructor Kevin Seaman at a seminar largely devoted to stick work?  What would it matter to him, her, or it that I've published other articles describing my training and providing photographic evidence of it? No, none of this is significant. The fact that I once wrote a very brief article about how to hang up rattan sticks to keep them from warping is proof positive that I don't train at all (or perhaps simply "enough") with such implements, and this is symbolic of my ongoing lack of commitment to the martial arts in general.

Of course, as we'll see later in this not-a-review, the fact that I've bothered to explain any of that to you is simply another "excuse," another rationalization. It could not be that I have any good-faith intent in what I do or what I say; it could not be that I am simply honest about what I think and believe; it could not be that there is a reason for anything I write that can be interpreted as anything other than that I am a pretender and a fool. "JKDChick" is one of those who don't believe, for whatever personal deficiencies or weaknesses, and thus no explanation is or will be sufficient.

Phil Elmore – for all his pretense to “warrior hood” (and please note he has contributed to a Paladin press non-fiction anthology an article called ‘Warrior Lessons Learned and Unlearned’) – has a teenager’s understanding of martial arts.

Oh, how my critics hate and despise the legitimacy conferred on me by Paladin's inclusion of my essay in Warriors: On Living with Courage, Discipline, and Honor. "Personally," wrote another critic of mine, whom I even considered a friend until my success in the martial arts drove a wedge between us, "I can't imagine any greater waste of the minutes of my life than reading Phil Elmore's thoughts on being a warrior."

The problem with this interpretation of events is that it completely ignores the point of the essay in question. In "Warrior Lessons Learned and Unlearned," I delved deeply into my own emotions and my own personal struggles in order to deliver to Paladin an essay I thought worthy of the honor they were granting me. Many of the contributors to the collection are quite famous – luminaries in the martial arts field whose work includes many texts now sitting on my heavily laden bookshelves.

My essay is not several paragraphs about why I am a "warrior" and why you should learn from me. Rather, it describes the lessons I have learned (and those I wrongly learned and then discarded) during the course of my training in the martial arts. I explain, in self-deprecating and frankly critical terms, the personality traits I once possessed that my training changed or even cured. The martial arts made me more confident and self-assured, more confident, and more capable. They made me a better man. They cured me, in large part, of tendencies to obsessive-compulsion and hypochondria. Not to sound like Chuck Norris, or anything, but training in the martial arts produced such benefits in me that I am eager to tell anyone who will listen all about this fact – and in so doing I will not shrink from telling you what was wrong with me before and while I started seeing those benefits.

My point is that the essay is about self-discovery and the never-ending process of learning to be a better person, not pontification on what it means to be a black-bag spec-ops warrior badass and not presumptive bloviating on high-minded principles and battlefield strategies. It's a very real look at one person's inner flaws and battles, in this case mine. That is why it's in the book. I don't think the book's editor, Loren Christensen – a veteran martial artist, soldier, and law enforcement official with many excellent books to his credit – would be taken in by a lot of false posturing. Do you?

Moving on (and dismissing a few paragraphs of intellectually empty insults), we actually start to get to some of the material in my book, Shorthand Empty Hand:

...But the conclusions that are reached from the totality of [the] knowledge [of teenagers and sci-fi-convention-going gaming geeks] are generally silly, over-blown, pretentious or plain wrong. Phil’s got the same problem and it’s most glaringly obvious in the pages of this recent “manual”, Shorthand Empty Hand.

I will give Mr. Elmore this. He has an excellent grasp of the fundamentals of writing. His style is florid but clear and well constructed. He suffers badly, though, from being his own editor, what I refer to as the “Stephen King Syndrome”. King is also a master technician of the written word, and a good story-teller … and he would be even better if he were not so powerful, so much a genre unto himself that no one will edit him anymore. Phil’s got a similar problem, but in his case it’s the fact he uses vanity press and the web to publish himself that handicaps him. His self-indulgence cripples what would be limpid prose in a more self-aware writer.

I love the fact – dearly, I do – that those who "despise" me cannot help but grudgingly admit that I am a damned good writer. These words, coming from someone whose hatred is so palpable, would translate to the offer of one's virginity if coming from a fan. I like the term "florid" as it relates to my writing. I even wrote an entire column in defense of verbosity, quite some time ago, acknowledging my fondness for such elaborate prose. While my admirer manages to couch it as an insult, the unavoidable fact is that, yes Virginia, I am a good writer and even my enemies can't help but admit it.

...I cannot free myself from this crushing weight of contempt for a man who couldn’t hack aikido, dropped out of Wing Chun when his Sifu began to expect his students to be in decent shape and thinks that he needs to carry multiple weapons at all times to defend himself.

These statements briefly touch on more creative reinterpretations of reality concerning why I've studied (or stopped studying) what I have and what I believe when it comes to self-defense. We'll be revisiting this because our poor dear does so, but briefly, I'll address it.

I didn't "drop out" of Wing Chun Kung Fu. After struggling greatly with the decision, I left my Wing Chun kwoon and my teacher because I was not enjoying the training. There are many reasons someone might choose to do this and I detailed my inner struggle in a rather introspective article about it. I did not leave because I couldn't hack the physical aspects of it; not long after leaving Wing Chun to pursue Liu Seong Gung Fu, which I enjoyed much more, I added to my training lessons in Jeet Kune Do, which is more athletic, more... aerobic in its approach than were my Wing Chun classes.

Training in Jeet Kune Do, which is much more athletically demanding
than were my Wing Chun classes at the Syracuse Wing Chun Academy.

Now, I'll never be a world-class athlete, but when I am doing something I enjoy I will push myself to the point of passing out and beyond. This, too, is not important to people who want so desperately to think ill of me. If I am some sort of weakling, some sort of lightweight, it is easier to dismiss me and thus to minimize what I have managed to accomplish. In this way, my critics can feel better about themselves and not feel quite so inferior when comparing what they've done (or would feel authorized or able to do) to what I do.

In all his writings, Phil’s immense solipsism (I can use ten dollar words too) and defensive martyrdom flare up. Phil’s inherent insecurities about himself and his training squirm off the page or computer screen. He asserts things like this:

“Most of my accomplishments in this field have been, for lack of a better word, ‘unofficial’.”

When my Jeet Kune Do instructor told me I had progressed through his beginner's curriculum faster than any other student he'd taught, that was an unofficial accomplishment. When my non-traditional teacher David promoted me several times after demanding and arduous sparring tests, that was an unofficial accomplishment. When The Martialist first started logging half a million hits a month – and representatives from companies involved in the martial arts and weapons industries started answering my telephone inquiries with, "Oh, Phil Elmore? The publisher of The Martialist,, that Phil Elmore?" – that was an unofficial accomplishment. Every time I learn to perform adequately a technique in any of the multiple martial arts I study, that is an unofficial accomplishment. The only time any of these accomplishments become "official" in the eyes of spectators like "JKDChick" is when, one presumes, some external entity hands down a rank certificate, a belt, an award, or some other tangible prize. Prizes, feedback, affirmation – these are not why I do what I do. That is why everything I've managed to accomplish is "unofficial" and why I make the reference.

Now, sure, it would be nice to have found a single martial art to study with which i could stick for long enough to earn a rank that would impress the rubes, children, and insiders in the martial arts scene. I would be very happy if that had happened – for it would mean I'd found something that suited me so well, that I liked so much, that offered teaching I found so invaluable, that I stayed for a long time. Unfortunately for me – and perhaps for the martial arts scene in general – this happens all too rarely. Removing factors like jobs and changes of location that might cause one to leave a school due to proximity, there are many, many schools and teachers who simply don't offer what I want. That is why I left Wing Chun. I left it, not to flee it, not to leave something too demanding, but to devote my time instead to something I liked more. In my case it was Liu Seong Gung Fu and Jeet Kune Do.

What my critics seem to miss – and what I am happy to have them ignore as I quietly go about continuing a decade and a half of training in unarmed and armed arts, styles, and systems – is that even when I move from something to something else, I keep training. I am now and always will be a student. I will always learn. I will always strive to accomplish new things. This is something they do not, have not, and probably cannot do.

To those whose only interest is in trying (in vain) to elevate themselves by attacking those who've accomplished more, no amount of derision will fill the empty spot within their souls. Such people live forever in the shadows of others, resenting the fact that those they see as inferior have dared what they would not.

"JKDChick" says as much in her screed. She, he, or it would not publish a book and has nothing to offer ordinary citizens seeking self-defense. She, he, or it believes herself to be better or more skilled than me. Therefore my publication of Shorthand Empty Hand is more than offensive to her; it is a personal insult. This is genuinely sad. I feel badly for her, him, or it – or I would, if I thought this person was anything more than a petty, angry, self-deluded, mean-spirited twerp.

He makes eternal excuses for why he couldn’t keep up training in any one art. The vast majority of SHEH for example is an autobiography of Phil, packed with self-congratulatory anecdotes, spurious “compliments” and over-wrought quotations that serve to justify his lack of commitment, rank or continuity.

Here we come back to such people's inability to accept that which is earnest, that which is genuine, as honestly offered in good faith. I include my martial biography in Shorthand Empty Hand specifically so as not to misrepresent myself as an "expert." I don't consider myself an "expert" and will never appoint myself one. I would reject that description if it was applied to me – even if it was applied in the context of a field in which I do have impressive credentials, such as technical writing. (I have been a technical writer for 12 years and I am very good at it. I am well-paid. My father has been a technical writer for almost twenty years and I first learned the trade from him. If anyone called me an "expert" writer, good as I am, I'd defer to him over me. That doesn't diminish what I can do; it's simply arrogant to go around referring to yourself that way.)

There is no pleasing my most vocal critics, however. If I tell you exactly what I have and have not done, precisely what I have and have not earned, I must be making "eternal excuses." It could not possibly be that I'm proud of my training and what I have done, while recognizing that I have no credentials that would impress anyone. I have no appeals to authority to make. To persuade you of anything I have only my words, the reason with which I argue my opinions, and the degree to which what I say resonates with the reader.

I am of the opinion that if I first tell you exactly who I am and what I have done, you are free to choose to read on or not. You are free to decide if the opinions I then express make sense to you or do not. That is the respect I have for the reader. My critics, meanwhile, believe anyone reading anything in the martial arts – anyone who is not one of their number – is a moron who is easily taken in by dangerous and inadvisable techniques and methods. They believe you will literally fall for anything, if they are not standing in the breach to warn you off with pointing fingers, stolen and photoshopped pictures, and angry Internet posts laden with vulgarity.

It is the compulsive need of someone who has never garnered much respect or attention to be seen and judged worthy by others. It’s sad and dorky and very stereotypical. I was like that once, fat and awkward, too “smart” for my own good and just convinced that if I didn’t MAKE people like me, I wasn’t worth much. I got better. It’s called growing up.

If essays of this type are what this person considers "growing up," I'd hate to see what he, she, or it would consider aging gracefully. I find it curious that someone affiliated with a forum where I am such a frequent topic of conversation, where I have my own FAQ file, and whose members are convinced I am leading (or am likely to lead) astray some vast number of ignorant fools who don't know better than to listen to my opinions about self-defense, would then declare that I have "never garnered much respect or attention."  It's also simply ironic that someone making such childish attacks would presume to judge anyone else's maturity.

The Martialist is well-respected as a publication, my work is well-respected by people capable of rational thought, and I don't do what I do for anyone's approval or affirmation – but even if we stipulated all of this and then dismissed it, I'd say the one thing anyone could verify that I get, especially online, is attention. I don't do what I do for that, either, but it always helps to know that people will read what you right (even if they don't agree with it). For a writer, knowing your words will be read makes you feel powerful – for your opinions, the opinions of one person, are being considered (even if they are rejected) by an audience that could number in the hundreds or the thousands. That is intoxicating and I don't deny its attractions – but to me, it is the writing that matters. I would write even if I knew my work would never see the light of day, simply because these ideas have to get out of my head.

Phil tries to respond to and attack his critics in many a heavy-breathing sweep of language. We’ll just step away from the arrogance inherent in the use of words like “punditry” and “pedantry”. We’ll nod and smile at someone who describes their detractors as “hoplophobic” (it basically means “an irrational fear of guns” and is a recent made-up word, not in dictionaries yet. “Hoplophilia” is another related word, which I’ll leave you to figure out on your own). What’s important is this: there is a slim chance that during the construction of the paragraph in SHEH that contains those phrases, Phil was thinking of Bullshido briefly. I felt all warm and fuzzy.

I've said before that I've been debating and arguing online since the old UseNet days. I'm very, very good at it. I was never on the debate team in school, but I think I should have been; I think quickly, type almost as fast, I'm good with rhetorical tools, I recognize rhetorical ploys, I'm logical and methodical, I can be humorous when need be, and I enjoy arguing with people. I know that sounds arrogant, but it's also true, so I can't apologize for it or diminish it. I don't try to respond to my critics; I demolish them. I do so easily because they make it easy. Take this incredibly lengthy piece to which I am responding. It's almost completely childish personal attacks (and what little substance it contains we'll address presently). That's not hard at all to ridicule, to refute, and to dismiss – for all you have to do is explain the truth and throw in some counter-insults.

We'll also have to forgive "JKDChick" his, her, or its ignorance. Hoplophobia, a word I've used in some of my writing online as well as in Shorthand Empty Hand, is a term coined (or at least popularized – I believe coined) by famous firearms columnist and "The Gunner's Guru" Jeff Cooper, whose writing in Guns and Ammo I have always enjoyed. It was Cooper who gave us "The Modern Technique of the Pistol" and it is Cooper who has left an indelible mark on contemporary weaponscraft. I don't expect a hoplophobe like "JKDChick" to know any of that, so she can be forgiven for failing to see this as an informed allusion rather than me making up words to sound smart and smug.

I also don't expect someone like that to see past his, her, or its foolish biases when it comes to weaponry. That's a matter of philosophy that one either understands or does not. Being armed – being prepared – is the acknowledgment that you are not omnipotent, that no matter how well trained you might be there will always be someone (or a group of someones) who can take you.

Those who see being armed as paranoia or, worse, as indicative of poor martial skill (or a lack of confidence in those skills) are the ones who are incredibly, supremely, unbelievably arrogant – because they actually believe they don't "need" any of that, that their training and their misconceptions about how confident and competent they are will be enough to see them through any situation. Worse, they simply give in to defeatism when considering those situations in which weapons are necessary, proclaiming them scenarios for which one simply cannot successfully train.  That is the problem with the narrowly defined mixed-martial-arts attitude that is the only widely accepted training doctrine at websites like Bullshido. It confuses sport for reality and substitutes wishful thinking for realistic preparation.

It's a fact that people with impoverished vocabularies become easily nettled when confronted with someone who enjoys words, who uses them to good effect, and who enjoys uncommon or complex turns of phrase. There is little I can do about that. No doubt a good many of Bullshido's members have reached this part in my rebuttal because their lips got tired while they were busily sounding out each sentence.

The themes of both The Martialist and SHEH aren’t things like “warrior hood” and “objectivism. They are deeper and darker than that: constant assertions of betrayal and abandonment; monotonous repetition of honesty, sacrifice, and bravery; the solitary hero’s battle against the withering scorn of the “establishment”. Buried in the storm of words is the idea that some how what Phil’s trying to sell is reality.

It is sad to see someone so deluded about reality that he, she, or it is willing both to decry those with a more honest view and to demand his, her, or its views be validated regardless of relevance. A reader of The Martialist, writing from the UK, actually summed up my publication and my outlook better than I have managed to do myself:

"I have read the introductions and discussion on Martialism on The Martialist website," he told me in an e-mail. "In brief, your argument for Martialism, as I understood it, is [that by] ignoring how, when, why, etc., one may be drawn into violent conflict, it is critically important to be as well equipped and prepared for it (whether by weapons, tools, tactics, training, etc.) to maximise the chances of emerging from it with your objectives met. You stress the importance of pragmatism, practicality, and applicability in a real situation, of both physical and philosophical aspects of martial training, emphasising them over approaches that rely on being compelling, easy to absorb, concordant with popular views, etc."

That is the theme of my publications. Is one of which I am proud. It is life-affirming. It is the firm conviction that self-defense is the inalienable right of all human beings – young or old, fat or fit, skilled or merely scared. It is my goal to help all those ordinary citizens out there for whom the ridiculous MMA-mindset and the unrealistic blather of countless would-be "experts" is of no help at all or, worse, discourages those who might otherwise study self-defense.

"JKDChick" goes on to whine about my co-founding of the Shanliang Li martial system. "Creating a martial art is not something most people are going to do," she mewls. "Not even those of us who’ve been training for most of our lives." That is, of course, the emotion underlying so much of the criticism leveled against me. How dare I? Well, I do a lot of things most people simply can't be bothered to do or to accomplish. I do it for me. I need no one's permission and no one's approval. I realize this is rare in the circles traveled by people who admit they are "obsessed" with those they "despise," but that's not my problem.

Taking quotes out of order, we'll deal with the same topic before moving on to other deliberate misconceptions:

Oh, and the strange, strange concept that being able to string together words in a sentence makes you a qualified martial artist: “…(Pearson) would only found the style with my help. I was not qualified to found a fighting style (Ed: You think? Italics added) on my own, but I did bring to the table my background as a sometime journalist and longtime martial student”.

To me that’s like my saying I’m not qualified to fly a fighter jet on my own, but I can drive a car and I’ve seen “Top Gun” like 5 times, so I can teach you flight tactics.

Missing completely is the acknowledgment here that while I had (and have) no credentials qualifying me to start a martial art or found a martial system according to spectators, I had (and have) my ability to communicate (invaluable in helping someone publicize and relate a system) and I have years of earnest study in the martial arts even if my critics choose to dismiss that. Techniques and methods I prefer became part of Shanliang Li; that is simply a fact. However, I don't go around saying, "You should listen to me because I co-founded a system!" It is simply true – like saying I wear glasses or that I consume too much salt.

Also missing is any understanding of the concept that while my critics have been busy complaining, I have continued my studies. It has been years since the initial founding of Shanliang Li, a process not yet complete (the website is still under construction and the curriculum not yet fully defined). Shanliang Li is also not mine. It's David's, and I accept that I have co-founded it because he told me he considers that true. If he had not said that, I would consider my assistance... well, assistance only.

Writing Shorthand Empty Hand is likewise not, I don't believe, "creating a martial art," which implies a degree of completion that a short book of this type cannot have. Writing the book certainly is codifying a system and perhaps that distinction is semantic only. If that's the case, fine. It's also possible that once I finish writing all the books in the Shorthand Empty Hand series, what results could be considered an art rather than a system. When that happens, it happens – and even more time will have passed, during which my critics will have merely talked while I will have continued my training.

I don't consider myself unqualified to tell you how I think self-defense should be performed or pursued. Shorthand Empty Hand is also most definitely mine. Is it a martial art? Is it just a system? Is it a method? Is it a concept? I don't know what you think and I don't believe it matters. It is merely my opinion, distilled as simply and efficiently as I can offer it. I said nothing I would not tell a family member or another loved one. I offered nothing of which I am not proud. I did not misrepresent the ways in which I arrived at those opinions.  The reader is free to choose accordingly.

Of course, if I really want to parse my words, I could explain the difference between the phrases "was not" and "am not."

As I predicted, none of this deals with what I've written. Rather, it deals with whether the reader grants his, her, or its approval for the fact that I wrote what I did. I cannot overemphasize the frequency with which criticism of my book revolves around the statement, "Well, I would not have written a book with my experience..."  Implied every time that is said is that the critic believes himself superior to me, more skilled than me, more experienced than me.  If he would not start a system, my starting one is an affront.  What this means is that everyone making this statement is not judging my work; he or she is reacting to his or her feelings of comparative inferiority.

Phil has other obsessions, of course: the necessity of pre-emptive force, how you must attack first, and destroy your opponent; a nearly debilitating rage towards panhandlers; and weapon obsession and paranoia.

The importance of preemptive force is not an obsession; it is merely a reality. I don't expect someone who trains unrealistically to understand that. I certainly do confess that I do not like street people and I absolutely despise beggars; I've written about this topic extensively at The Martialist. An understanding of the importance of weapons is hardly obsession and paranoia, but hoplophobes frequently project their mental weakness on others in jumping to this conclusion. I have written extensively about this topic, both generally and with regard to hoplophobes specifically.

In his own words “I remember thinking that I was walking around unarmed amidst a couple of thousand people who all seemed to be ‘strapped’” – this after encountering TWO people who carried knives.

This is simply and transparently dishonest. My admirer takes the original quote out of context in order to distort what I was trying to say. The complete quote says this:

I have been a student of the martial arts since 1990. I am passionate about self-defense and a firm believer in preemptive force. I believe all human beings should have the means to defend themselves against society's predators. I am also an avid student of all forms of weaponry, from knives, sticks, swords, and more exotic martial implements to modern firearms.

My interest in self-defense and my pursuit of martial skill started when I was a freshman at Alfred University (though I do remember reading some karate books in the library of my high school when I was in the 9th grade – it’s safe to say I was at least curious back then). I used to DJ a radio show with a friend of mine on W.A.L.F, 89.7 FM, in Alfred. During one show, my friend invited a guest who spent her time off-microphone playing with a butterfly knife. At the time I thought this was unusual, so I related the story to a classmate the next day as we waited for the professor to arrive. Another student a couple of chairs behind me, overhearing us, produced his butterfly knife.

I remember thinking that I was walking unarmed amidst a couple of thousand people who all seemed to be “strapped.” Not much longer after that, my neighbor (the fellow who occupied the room next door to mine in our dorm) showed up with a small Cold Steel tanto he’d purchased during a weekend in New York City (where he lived). I obtained from him a Cold Steel catalog and started planning.

My fascination concerning – and interaction with – knives developed thereafter, as I amassed a collection of self-defense blades of my own. During college I found myself confronted by a heavily armed occult group, from whose members I learned a thing or two (mostly what not to do with knives and machetes – it’s a very long, very complicated story). It was meeting the leader of this group in 1992 that really spurred my interest in the martial arts, pushing me to enroll in the Alfred Martial Arts Association.

Thus it was that I started my “formal” studies in Chidokwan Karate in college. I was fortunate to get into the slot as a physical education requirement, for those not yet seniors seldom rated the coveted classes. This was the first truly physical activity I’d ever pursued in my life, having been a dismal “athlete” in high school. I warmed to it quickly and soon became quite obsessed with Karate.

Sounds a little different, doesn't it? Instead of meaning the reader to take my conclusion seriously, I am clearly stating that I was – probably unrealistically – freaked out by meeting two seemingly random people in quick succession, both of whom had the same kind of knife. I am relating the story because it led me through a series of bizarre events that culminated in studying formal martial arts for the first time (and was the beginning of a life-long love of blades, which is simply background). That sounds a lot less interesting and a lot less damning than simply saying, "I met two people with knives! Everyone is armed! Gaaaaaa!" My overreaction to what was, in context, an unusual coincidence at best set me down a path that had far-reaching consequences.

Recently, there was a public and embarrassing meltdown over his Wing Chun Sifu’s devastating comment:

“You on the other hand barely train and are viewed by your former and present instructor AND former and present classmates as a dead rank beginner with VERY LITTLE skill or real life experience... despite your "15 years" in martial arts.”

Ah, yes, the famous quote – one I address at this very site and which I counter with quotes from two other teachers, one of them a recognized traditional instructor. The only person embarrassed by any sort of "meltdown" after I left Wing Chun Kung Fu – quietly and respectfully after deciding that I was not enjoying my training there – was my former instructor, who made quite a fool of himself consorting with people who, when he was associated with me, had nothing but vile insults to offer where he was concerned.

Everyone knows that the assessment of a teacher one has rejected, one who has attacked you for writing a book he didn't believe you should write (which he'd never read), must be fair and impartial – especially when he offers his assessment after several days and multiple posts of an ongoing argument. Right?

Let's just say that my instructor, in my opinion, both legitimized my book through his too-loud protests while demeaning himself in attacking, unprovoked, a former student – a student who never treated him with anything other than respect and kindness. His opinion is worse than revisionist history – it is simply not impartial.

Remember, too, that my instructor promoted me not once, but twice.  If I was the poor student we are expected to believe I was in his revision of history where I am concerned, why would have have promoted me both times?  I was one of his senior students.  I had been with the school since it opened.  We were friends.  Compare and contrast this to the various negative things he had to say about me after we had our falling out.  There is a paradox here.  If I was a poor student, my teacher promoted me when he should not have and allowed me to remain at his school when he should not have.  If I was not a poor student and I earned my promotions and my position in the school, my former teacher's assessment cannot be accurate.  Both cannot be true at the same time.

Is it so hard to understand, really, that when people get angry with you they sometimes say things that are less than objective, less than impartial, and therefore less than accurate?

Phil has a gift though for overstating the obvious. Intelligent, basic principles, which all competent teachers espouse as building blocks, get presented by Phil with far more weight than they deserve.

What my critics don't seem to understand is that they cannot have it both ways in this regard, either. Either I am overstating the obvious building blocks or I am spinning a web of dangerous drivel. Later in this same pile of foolishness, "JKDChick" calls me (and what I write) just that – dangerous. How can the obvious be so dangerous? Well, it can't – unless one's hatred blinds one to just that.  My book was written for beginners.  Of course it states the obvious.  

Forward pressure, called by Phil in SHEH forward drive or space domination is the first fighting principle that most people learn. Put simply, it’s harder to fight backing up, so you need to be able to press in on your opponent, to take control of the space between you. The assertion though, that moving forward is ALWAYS the right thing to do is just … well, it’s not wrong precisely. It’s USUALLY a good thing, but footwork is more about controlling distance than JUST moving forward. ...In SHEH I felt like I was reading the ramblings of a 17 year old who just skimmed the “Tao of Jeet Kune Do” and thinks he’s being profound...

I specifically state in Shorthand Empty Hand that it is necessary sometimes to back up in order to take advantage of your footwork or in moving off line – but I also state that you should be overwhelming your opponent, driving forward, whenever possible. This is a fundamental principle of WWII combatives, one of the heavy influences on what I do and what I see as pragmatic self-defense. The fact that my admirer can't debate this concept without hurling silly personal attacks just ices this rancid cake.

It’s FRUSTRATING, to see some good mixed with so much bad. Admonishments to be aware, not get too focused on any one thing in a fight, keep your hands up, maintain space, move forward, the fact that your feet can’t beat your hands for speed – this is all good stuff. Simple, basic, isn’t-this-all-obvious? stuff. It all bears repeating. It’s not new and Phil does have the honesty to say that.

This is probably the only really honest portion of this not-a-review – and it's actually a pretty accurate assessment of the book's contents. One has to wonder what about that suddenly becomes "dangerous" when my admirer is searching for a bravura conclusion to this sad outburst.

Another gem from SHEH: “This slightly blurred holistic vision not only helps you perceive movement …” That’s just stupid talk. Slightly blurred holistic vision? Please. In a book ostensibly written for rank beginners with no experience, all that phrase does is invite people to cross their eyes and squint. Holistic adds nothing but potential confusion. I know what the guy means – most martial artists of experience will immediately know he means you need to see the whole body, even if only in your peripheral vision, but using the word “blurred” is just dangerous. The only time my vision blurs in a fight is if I’ve been hit really hard.

Now, with the rest of the material in the book leading up to this quote excerpted, this terribly inscrutable sentence might seem a little more accessible to the common beginner. Unfortunately, this is really more about "JKDChick" getting angry when confronted with a word he, she, or it had to look up in a dictionary. I'm sorry; I don't assume my readers are morons. I realize that assuming everyone but you is a moron is the prerequisite for becoming part of the Bullshido moderators' team, but I'd hate to see that become a universally accepted standard.

Here's what I said:

Focus on nothing and everything. Much debate has taken place in the martial arts world regarding what or where to watch in a physical altercation. When you face someone whom you must fight, for whatever reason, do you watch their eyes? Do you watch their hands? Do you focus on the dan tien, the body’s center? Do you watch the leading elbow, the shoulder, the hips? On what should you focus?

The answer, much as it might sound like a convenient dodge, is all of these and none of them. When you face off with someone, blur or unfocus your vision slightly. Do not stare at any given part of the opponent’s body. Instead, take in the whole body as a single entity, seeing everything and nothing at once. This slightly blurred holistic vision not only helps you perceive movement in the other person, but makes it easier for you to dehumanize him – to see him as an opponent rather than a person, which in turn makes it easier for you to deliver physical force if you must.

Not so hard to absorb now, is it? My Wing Chun instructor (yes, that one) encouraged even us poor, benighted beginners to focus on the body's center, the dan tien, taking in everything and nothing at once in order to perceive movement. This is not a hard concept. It might seem hard to those who think certain mysteries are the purview of only the experienced and the worldly, but it's fairly easy to grasp.

Phil’s rhetorical bag of rhetorical tricks is always getting hauled out. He’s a master of the straw man – in SHEH Phil “defends” the principle of keeping your hands up against its detractors, citing arguments I’ve heard no one espouse.

This is completely false. I wrote an article, for example, called Three Criticisms and Defenses of Hands-Up Ready Stances, which became the core of this section of Shorthand Empty Hand. The criticisms I addressed came directly from Internet forum commentary on an earlier article in the series, Maintaining Space and Weapons Transition. The earlier article was cited at a discussion boafd and I found it in my referrer logs. The criticisms of it struck me as misguided, so I noted them and wrote the second article to address them. Furthermore, these criticisms are the ones I've seen most often with regard to hands-up ready stances. Claiming they are "straw men" is both intellectually dishonest and lazy. It is denying reality for the sake of scoring a rhetorical point.

Oh, and while we're at it, what's with the phrase "Phil's rhetorical bag of rhetorical tricks?" Is that another publication of the Department of Redundancy Department?

He’s good with the “appeal to authority” gambit too, sloughing off responsibility for his attitudes on various masters, writers and posters on Pax Baculum.

This is a meaningless statement and easy to make when not backed with any substantiating quotes. I'm not even sure exactly what it means. I think it means I make appeals to authority, though it might mean I dismiss as appeals to authority valid criticism of me. Either way, I don't assign responsibility for anything I believe to anyone but me, though I do believe in crediting my sources and influences.

Phil sets up straw man after straw man in his articles as standard operating procedure.

It is more than a little annoying to see someone redefine the logical fallacy of the "straw man" as "anything Phil says with which I don't agree." Forming a straw man is deliberately misinterpreting your opponent's position in order to attack that position more easily. It is not simply any premise with which my admirer disagrees.

SHEH is particularly bad for it, by the way – the idea that “real” people can’t afford to train hard because they can’t afford to be punched in the head and go blind gets multiple mentions. Now, I’ve trained for upwards of 17 years. My instructor's been at it longer. I’ve asked the Bullshido community of over 10 000 members for information. And with that entire pool of people and experience I believe there was ONE documented case of someone going blind from a punch and that was because of cerebral swelling. Maybe two.

This is what comes of relying too much on the mythical "10,000 members" of one's forum for important medical information. Setting aside the fact that any webmaster will tell you that for every hundred members a forum lists, one in ten of those is actually active, to dismiss the dangers of, say, a retinal detachment from a severe blow to the head is to deny reality. (According to reality, one out of every ten thousand people in the United States will be affected by a retinal detachment this year.  Any hard blow to the head can cause such a detachment.  I'm not at all concerned with the incidents of such problems among competitors and athletes, who – particularly in, say, boxing – are prescreened for such risk factors and are the least likely to experience them before the fact.)

Of course, focusing on incidents of blindness in sportfighting takes what I said wildly out of context and changes its emphasis. Here's what I actually wrote:

You see, life is not a Kung Fu movie. It is not a game. It is not a reality show. It is not a Pay-Per-View airing of the Ultimate Fighting Championship™. The average citizen has responsibilities and a life to live. He doesn’t spend six hours a day, every day, training. He can’t afford to slug it out with some disgruntled mixed martial arts athlete because he can’t risk getting punched so hard he goes blind. He can’t take the chance he’ll contract a blood-borne illness while he and his challenger bash their fists into each other, leaking from cuts to their faces and knuckles. He’s not interested in indulging someone else’s ego. He’s a grownup living and operating in a grown-up world and he can’t show up to work at the office on Monday with two black eyes and a nose wrapped in bandages.

Changes the focus and the thrust of the quote a bit, doesn't it? Again, reality and truth are not considerations when one is on the warpath.

Phil is also obsessed with “personal space”, about not letting anyone close enough to attack you. It’s as though he feels he’s in a ninja movie, with shadowy enemies poised to strike at any moment. And he’s schizoid about it. From one sentence to the next he stresses that if someone is close enough to attack you, you must pre-empt them. The next sentence warns that you can’t do this unless your life is in danger and can’t just go around attacking people.

This is so dishonest I almost don't know where to begin. Yes, I do discuss the fact that you can't run around attacking people who do not represent a credible threat. This is simply part of a cogent and realistic discussion of the legal ramifications of self-defense that is included in my supposedly "paranoid" book. I also state that when someone does represent a credible threat, you must preempt them if you can. This is basic and realistic fighting theory – not some elaborate scheme created by a madman. (Personal space is probably the most important consideration in determining when you must use physical force.  Their proximity to you determines what they can do to you.)  In the midst of all that, I also state that you can't protect your personal space to distraction:

In life, especially if your social interactions are healthy, you will find yourself in venues you cannot control. There will be times when you have no choice but to permit others to violate your personal space because the quarters are too close. If you’ve ever stood with others in a crowded restaurant or bar, waited in line at an amusement park, walked the congested streets of a major city, used public transportation, or even attended church, you have permitted others to get within striking distance of you. These situations are unavoidable. It is neither practical nor possible to lead a normal life while keeping every other human being beyond arms’ reach.

When you must allow people into your personal space, your only choice is to remain aware of them and what they are doing. Stay alert but calm, absorbing what is going on in your proximity. If you detect something inappropriate, act on it. Until then, be content simply to watch or even feel those crowding you. There will be times when you are so crowded that you won’t be able to look around easily; at those times your sense of touch (as others press against your arms and shoulders, for example) is your only indication of what is happening around you.

In self-defense scenarios, there will be those times when you cannot preserve your personal space. A sudden attack in which your opponent is abruptly on top of you is one such case. A seemingly innocent social interaction in which an individual surprises you through deception is another. You must be capable of fighting and of seizing the initiative even when taken by surprise. You will never be able to predict every conceivable situation in which something surprising could occur.

In those cases in which you do perceive a potential threat approaching and have both time and space in which to deal with that threat, you can employ the hands-up methodology. Keeping your hands up in the course of a physical altercation helps protect your vulnerable head and neck. Getting those hands up ahead of time provides that protection preemptively while helping to establish your personal space (and sending a strong nonverbal message to that effect).

Again, the impression one gets from what I've actually written is vastly different from the deliberate misinterpretation offered by my admirer.

...we descend into the pits of madness, otherwise known as “techniques”. These include: a counter to an arm grab that would be useful maybe 2% of the time, if the guy grabbed you JUST right;

This may be a reference to rolling into a driving elbow when someone tries to grab you, which I do mention in my book. Dismissing it as something that won't work is purely ignorance.  All of the commentary offered on technique is similarly misinformed.  Poor "JKDChick" doesn't seem to have learned much in her time in the martial arts.

the palm heel, which I hate and always have, since I’ve messed up my wrists over and over with it;

I hate to put too fine a point on it, but someone who messes up his or her wrists performing palm heels is not performing them correctly. One of the advantages of the palm heel is that it takes advantage of one of the body's natural weapons and keeps the hand and wrist in a position in which they are less likely to be damaged. This is one of the reasons palm heels are recommended in WWII combatives and programs descended from them.

the edge of the hand (he actually invokes “Austin Powers Judo Chop”) a flashy, stupid technique much beloved of the young and foolish;

One wonders how young and foolish you have to be to dismiss edge-of-hand blows as "flashy" and "stupid." They are another of the body's natural weapon configurations and (again) are recommended in WWII combatives for that reason. The chop (and the forearm blow, which is related) are common to many martial arts I have studied, including Wing Chun and Liu Seong Gung Fu. I don't care if it does invoke "Austin Powers" – real life is not a movie and understanding that is, well, really important.

an avocation of the Wing Chun rooted vertical punch that just left me breathless with laughter;

One can only hope that my admirer's natural reaction to her own ignorance is to become "breathless with laughter," for the Wing Chun rooted vertical punch is extremely powerful – and vertical punches are less likely to damage the hand and wrist than are horizontal punches. This is an anatomical and physical fact. While the personal insults were amusing, this commentary on technique displays a disturbingly high level of ignorance when it comes to the martial arts methods discussed. This is someone with many years of experience?

and the idea that hammer fists are essentially superior to punches.

As I explain in the book, hammer fists are essentially superior to punches – unless you enjoy broken knuckles. For example, try punching a cinder block compared to applying a hammer fist to a cinder block. Do the same with the side or top of a human skull. One technique is much more likely to break your knuckles than the other. One technique makes use of the natural weaponry of the body by using the strongest, fleshiest portion of the hand as the striking surface. Can you guess which is which?

Everything – every technique – Phil advocates has some marginal or perhaps realistic value. But almost NONE of them could be properly applied by someone with no training.

This is, of course, false, but if someone thinks everyone is a moron, they are inclined to believe that nobody can manage anything without their intervention.

And he seems to revere the “chin jab”, which as far as I understand it is a palm heel strike under the chin. This, like a groin kick, is not an off switch.

I do not "revere" the chin jab; I simply recognize that is a very powerful technique. Those with any understanding of combatives grasp this. Sportfighters and MMA trolls dismiss it or, worse, think it refers to a conventional jab aimed at the chin.

Of course, Phil hates ground fighting.

I don't "hate" groundfighting. I do, however, hate the idea of deliberately going to the ground in a real altercation – for very realistic reasons, which I explain in the book. I also encourage the reader to seek cross-training in grappling for those occasions when things go wrong. I even offer some suggestions for worst-case scenarios should an untrained person end up getting taken down.

He mistook one section of the new Army combatives manual for the be-all-and-end-all of Army combat training and decided that all they were teaching was BJJ. He was rightfully ripped apart for that one on several Army forums.

I didn't 'mistake' anything; I correctly assessed the disproportionate amount of groundfighting and BJJ-related material in the Army's new combatives manual. I also was not "ripped apart" on "several Army forums." I received both positive and negative feedback on the article, at online sites and in e-mail, much of it from people who served and who had seen or experienced the training. They were roughly equally divided. Some demanded to know how I could dare criticize the program, while others told me that I was absolutely correct in my condemnation of it. The Army is as political – perhaps more – as any other organization when it comes to selecting weapons and training curricula. This BJJ-related curriculum simply isn't an improvement over previous H2H programs. My believing this apparently makes me a bad person to those who believe wholeheartedly in the groundfighting-centric sport MMA methodology, but their derision does not change reality.

Implied in criticism of my criticism is that one dare not ever complain about anything the military does or how it goes about doing it.  As we all know, our armed forces' leadership is well known for its perfection, its unerring ability always to choose the best methods and the best equipment.  It never makes mistakes.  Right?

He actually invokes the “broken glass and the other guy’s buddies” arguments about going to the ground. But he is right that you shouldn’t TRY to go to the ground, and once you’re there you’ve gotta assume your fighting for your life. So one more small nugget of good information oozes its way clear of the muck.

Yes, I actually discuss terrain, weaponry, and multiple opponents as factors that make intentional groundfighting dangerous. Yes, I do say you shouldn't try to go there but this might happen and you must fight for your life. This "small nugget" is actually the primary concept of the section on groundfighting, but I guess mischaracterizing it makes it easier to rail against me.

And then the next chapter of SHEH is highlighted by a Sammy Franco quote.

For those who might be unaware, I HATE SAMMY FRANCO. He states openly that women can’t fight, shouldn’t train and are only good for sucking. As one might guess, this doesn’t endear me to him or to anyone who respects him.

Shorthand Empty Hand contains over a dozen quotes, chosen because they were at least vaguely related to the chapters they preface. I happen to have included a quote from Reality Based Self-Defense (RBSD) instructor Sammy Franco with which I agree. To highlight only this quote and then elaborately freak out about it seems a little silly, to me, but then, I'm not an obsessive stalker who despises the subject about whom he is writing.

Both he an Phil denigrate “sport fighting” as being unrealistic because it’s one on one, ignoring one simple fact: there is NO way to train confidently for multiple attack. None. You know what usually happens when ANYONE gets attacked by multiple people? They get beaten up and/or die. The sum total of Phil’s advice is: don’t get surrounded. That’s nice. You might want to try breathing in and out too.

The sum total of my advice on multiple opponents is just a little more complicated than that, explaining as it does the concept of "attacking the corners." (Whether "JKDChick" hates Sun Tzu is not discussed in the "essay.") As for my beliefs on why sportfighting is unrealistic training (and dismissing the defeatism with which sportfighters justify their unrealistic approach), you can read The Martialist's point-counterpoint editorial on the topic.

Phil Elmore, who co-founded a martial art and writes self-defense manuals, is a childish, immature martial artist.

This "JKDChick," who has accomplished nothing of note in the self-defense field and who resents the fact that I have, is a childish, immature individual whom I could not characterize as a martial artist.

Decent martial artists take baby steps towards competence (keep your hands up, have good footwork, forward pressure, don’t hesitate on the attack) and build on them into their own personal enlightenments, recognizing that reading Musashi, Bruce and Sun Tzu till your eyes bleed isn’t going to make really fighting any easier. Phil feels things like that are the only credentials he requires.

Decent martial artists recognize that attacking others emotionally and dishonestly to elevate themselves actually diminishes the martial artist. Decent martial artists focus on their own training and their own productive work, offering something rather than demanding to be validated. Decent martial artists contribute to the self-defense community, rather than generating endless megabytes of angry and pointless rhetoric. The only credentials I require are a keen wit, a clear and critical mind, skill as a writer, and the willingness to stand up for what I believe. Any reasonable person can then judge my work on its own merits.

He couldn’t hack aikido, karate or wing chun but declares himself relentless.

I left Karate because I graduated the college at which it was offered. I left Aikido because a doctor told me, "The reason your arms are going numb is because the stress on your wrists is too great and you are going to develop tendonitis – stop doing that." (Ask the Aikido practitioners you know just how many of them have "permanently buggered" wrists – and ask yourself if a writer can afford to be debilitated in that way.) I left Wing Chun because I wasn't happy with the training – and I left it for not one, but two arts I enjoyed more. If that is an inability to "hack" something, so be it – but I have to wonder why some people need so badly to think ill of me.

I have continued writing and continued training despite the endless derision, criticism, hostility, and vile, personal, petty attacks of people like "JKDChick" – people who, by comparison, have done nothing and will do nothing to help others in the pursuit of success in self-defense. I have held myself up to constant public criticism despite knowing just how vicious these people can be. I have not been deterred, I have not been daunted, and I will not be denigrated dishonestly. I think that's a pretty textbook definition of "relentless." I'll let you decide.

He feels the need to be heavily armed whenever he leaves the house but considers himself a warrior.

I feel the need to be prepared for emergencies and I am not arrogant enough to think I can "take" anyone I meet with my bare hands and attitude alone. Armed citizens make society safer – but the responsibility they take for the defense of their families and themselves is something society's sheep will never grasp and never admire.

Armed citizens take responsibility for defending themselves and their families.

He writes about athletic training but doesn’t want to sweat.

I don't know anybody who gets up and says, "I really, really want sweat coming out of me.  I mean, that's my mission in life today.  Perspiration is great.  It is a goal unto itself." I've left my Jeet Kune Do training sessions so drenched in sweat that I needed to pack a larger towel in my gear bag – but no, at no time did I think about how much I wanted to experience that damp sensation. I think poor "JKDChick" needs to learn that sometimes in life we do things we don't enjoy because we must – and that sometimes in life we are faced with things that make us feel badly, but which we must accept with grace.

He espouses objectivism, free speech and dissent but bans anyone from his forum who disagrees with him.

I espouse Objectivism, I laud freedom of speech, and I tolerate dissent – but I ban from my forum anyone who cannot meet basic standards of intellectual honesty and substantive discussion. "JKDChick" was one such person who was "disinvited" to The Martialist's online discussion forum. Clearly, being scorned has left her very bitter.

He’s dangerous. To himself, to martial arts and especially to anyone who might read his work and think that they know something about how to defend themselves.

I am dangerous. I am dangerous to the legion of children and petty, angry "adults" who pollute the martial arts community with their envy, their hatred, and their pointless politicking. I am dangerous to everyone who thinks self-defense training is the sole territory and exclusive dominion of giant mixed martial arts competitors who have no necks and no brains, or of shriveled Asian icons dispensing colored belts and cryptic wisdom. I am dangerous to the status quo. I am dangerous to those whose envy and whose outrage are enflamed by others' accomplishments. I am dangerous to anyone and everyone whose horrific ignorance of the martial arts is upheld as a badge of honor, as wisdom, as the results of years of experience.

If I write a bad cookbook and someone takes my advice, some food might be wasted and a meal uneaten. If I write a bad self-defense manual and someone takes my advice, the end result could be crippling, rape or death.

If I write a good self-defense manual and someone takes my advice, I've done what I set out to do – despite the protestations of those whose unrealistic attitudes about self-defense could result in crippling injury, rape, or death. If I write a book about self-defense at all, the result could be the eternal enmity of those who hate what they cannot do and be.

You still need to ask me why I despise Phil Elmore?

No, I don't. But I do need to ask you why you despise yourself so much. I need to ask you why, in a world of people whose notoriety and accomplishments eclipse my own, I am the target over which you obsess and the only mark you feel you are capable of surpassing. I need to ask you why you cannot bring yourself to aim higher. I need to ask you why I, a relatively unimportant person, obsess you so – for if I am the best you can find, if I am the barometer of what you can meet and defeat, your opinion of yourself is miserably low.

I need to ask you why you spend so very much time thinking of me – for after I finish writing this, I will think of you not at all.