Thursday, June 01, 2017

Much Ado...

So way back in April of '07, when I began this blog, I had a notion for a title that reflected a major interest of mine...martial arts.  As my name is "Art", it seemed a natural to appropriate the term for the purpose.  After setting up the whole thing, that nagging feeling I had turned out to be provoked by a misspelling.  My mildly clever idea had been to use the term for a law enforcement officer, which as it turns out is often spelled as I had initially spelled it on my masthead (according to Wiki).  As I was new to the whole create-your-own-blog thing, and as Blogger was a bit different at the time, I wasn't keen on trying to figure out how to fix it.  So I left it.  Yet, I intended to one day fix it, because I didn't think it conveyed the clever idea as well as the more common spelling, and thus you see the blog is "renamed" MARSHAL ART'S.  (woo-freakin'-hoo)

I even have a concept in mind for graphics.  That requires actual sketches to get it right so that it looks good, and perhaps contracting with one or two other artists to do it for me, to see which version I prefer.  It would blend the western notion (Marshal Dillon) with the combat arts in the design.  What's in my head is way cool.  How long it'll take me to actually do it is another matter altogether.   Then of course I'll have to determine if I can actually import the pic to appear on my homepage.  Sounds like work.  I don't like work. 

You won't have to do anything different to get here, gentle reader, as evidenced by the fact that you got here.  And whoever is so compelled is free to engage in snark and mockery related to my misspelling my own name.  Just be prepared to suffer a virtual spinning back kick. 

Just as an aside, and for the purpose of needlessly expanding this post, I want to tell you a little story.  Back in the day, when I was full on martial-manic, a fellow karateka joked about our own TV show.  We only got as far as the intro, and it would be a martial artist cop show (like Walker: Texas Ranger became).  At our dojo, I was the only "Art" and this other dude was the only "Gary".  So, the voiceover would say, "MARSHAL ART!  and his sidekick (and as I would perform a side thrust kick, the camera would follow my foot panning over to), MAWASHI GARY! in..."(we never came up with an actual title)  A kick in Japanese, we were told, was pronounced (likely poorly) "geri".  A mawashi geri was translated as "roundhouse kick" or "round kick".  Hence the nickname of my associate, Gary, who would perform a roundhouse kick.  We even acted it out now and then for other eye-rolling students.   Oh, how we laughed.  "Marshal Art and his sidekick Mawashi Gary".  Those were the days.  He's in Houston now.  But anyway, that's whence the name of this blog originated and I'm sure you're all appropriately enthralled and enriched by the knowledge.

You're welcome.

17 comments:

Neil said...

Congratulations on 10 years of blogging!

Stan said...

It's funny. When I picture "Marshal Arts", I imagine Marshal Dillon doing ballet, so I suppose I'd do well to stick with the "martial arts" image instead. :)

Marshal Art said...

Who do you take me for...Rahm Emmanuel?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

It's always fun to learn a back-story.

Marshal Art said...

Note to feo: Don't post comments that have no relevance to the topic.

Feodor said...

All those years and you still can't use your mind when reading scripture.

Women shouldn't wear pants if they want to be saved. According to the way you read it.

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Marshal Art said...

It's incredible how you cling to your false perceptions of me and what I believe. I can't imagine being so insecure and hateful. The irony is how you question my understanding while so consistently demonstrating your own inability to understand. You should really spend your time at Dan's blog. You two are truly made for each other.

By the way, according to the way I read Scripture, those who adhere to the teachings of Scripture demonstrate that they are saved. Those, like you, who ignore those teachings, or who rationalize distortions of them, demonstrate something entirely different.

All those books...all that education...what a shame!

Feodor said...

Women in pants going to hell. What a horrid faith you have. According to the way you read scripture.

Marshal Art said...

feo,

Is this blatant lying you do the type of things you learned at seminary? Just wondering.

Feodor said...

You're ignoring that passage is scripture? You're such a liberal.

Marshal Art said...

I ignore nothing in Scripture. You must be thinking of yourself. I should be ignoring you, but I have a soft spot for the mentally challenged like you.

Feodor said...

"... those who adhere to the teachings of Scripture demonstrate that they are saved."

Your words.

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Scripture.

A woman wearing pants is going to hell. Only rational conclusion from how you claim you read scripture.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

How about context? Those laws for for Israel and Israel only. Continue demonstrating your ignorance.

Feodor said...

I love this new liberalism of yours! How about context? Those laws are for ancient Israel only! So, too for touching a pig, a woman on her period, homosexuality, Mixing cotton and wool, etc., etc.!

God be praised! It's a miracle of moral liberation!!

Marshal Art said...

feo,

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man..."

So you're saying that a woman's pantsuit, such as that worn by Hillary Clinton, means she's wearing men's clothes??? You're really a moron, aren't you?

"...neither shall a man put on a woman's garment"

So is a kilt a woman's skirt, or men's attire? Good gosh, you're an idiot. How do you tell the difference between the robes worn by men in ancient times and that worn by women? Most cultures have fashions designed for men and that which is designed for women. Ours has pants or slacks that are distinctly designed for women and that which are designed for men. "Pants" doesn't necessarily mean men's garments exclusively.

This all must emanate from your false and deceitful nature. You try so hard to portray those with an honest Scriptural understanding as lacking understanding, but you can't do so truthfully...since it isn't true. You have a desperate need to believe that my understanding of Scripture is wrong in order to validate your own, unjustified high opinion of yourself. You lie to yourself as badly as you lie about everything else.

And you lie once again in your last comment by mixing in a sexual behavior with purity laws, as if they are the same type of infraction. It's so incredibly sad just how pathetic you are. I'll continue to pray for your healing and enlightenment. You truly need it.

Feodor said...

Ah yes, there it is. The duplicitous liberalism of the unconscious Judaizer.

Your ugly conservative faith felt differently in the 40s. But, reality crept in and moved you leftward.

"There is another way of looking at the biblical passage you quoted. As we see it, "appropriateness" in men's and women's clothing is a concept that changes from culture to culture and from one historical period to the next. What "pertains to a man" in this particular time and place may not be the same as that which "pertains to a man" in another context. This is one of those instances in which the Bible has to be read and interpreted against the background of the culture and historical period in which it was written."

From Focus on the Family
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-q-and-a/parenting/girls-and-women-wearing-pants

Marshal Art said...

Ah...so you acknowledge that there is indeed a legitimate and widely recognized understanding of the passage you try to use to falsely indict me, thereby adding more credence to the firmly held conviction that you're a false priest. Not that I needed more evidence. Try as you may, you just cannot rationalize transvestism, sex-change surgery and homosexuality. But women wearing slacks designed for women are not in breach of any bit of Scripture. You wearing panties is.