Brian, unfortunately your references to “kool-aid” are lost on me, presumably you have formed some sort of prejudicial opinion of me, I don’t know. What I do know is that your grammar has prevented me from understanding you. Perhaps you could rephrase the following sentence? “How about what the people who made the kata?” Also perhaps I should have said “The reason I don’t think that kata contain deadly techniques is that this is a hypothesis that can’t be PROPERLY tested.” But as you’ve already pointed out “There's no way of testing it,no way of proving it.”

CVV

Quote:

---

I find this very strange.

---

Yes it is strange isn’t it.

Martin

brian, remember the forum rules of engagement they put up on bullshido? one of them was (paraphrase): 'When you are loosing an argument, attack their grammer.' lol

LOL Ed, I forgot about that rule,but hey,I'm from Arkansas. We are permitted and expected to have bad grammar. One things for sure though. We know what kata are for,lol. sip,sip,sip...

FOFF,
Yes.

If you ask me its all just prancin around anyway. Fighting is fighting. If you got to ask what it is its a waste of my time.

Nobody asked you pegnerd. Please exit the kata forum before it get's ugly.

jees here we go

If its not you cup of tea just move on to another forum.

'Also perhaps I should have said “The reason I don’t think that kata contain deadly techniques is that this is a hypothesis that can’t be PROPERLY tested.”'

There is no logical causitive connection between not being able to test a hypothesis and its being true or false. Your statement says that since "Hypothesis X" can't be properly tested - then "Hypothesis X" must be false. That is absurd. It would be equally absurd to insist that all hypothesies that can't be tested must be true.

In the absence of a "proper" test, perhaps you might participate in an imaginative - approximation of testing. You are on record as saying that bunkai are not deadly. Please consider allowing this to be tested on you by one of the senior karateka here. I'm not suggesting an actual test; only that you imagine submitting to the bunkai with only the protection you've stated: that the hypothesis can't be properly test so you must be safe. The reluctance to participate in this might be a pretty honest reality check.

in simple terms,

let me poke you in the eye, really hard to see if it hurts alot? OK

No i didnt think so...................

Whilst Martin brings alot of thought to this discussion I am starting to doubt his reasons for doing so, we all have our expierience of course........

Recently I was forced to use the first movements from seisan(although i didnt realise it at the time), uchi uke - reverse punch in simple terms, in a self defence situation.

it worked, im a believer............

Apologies for criticizing grammar but I really did not understand what was written. Obviously I need to become more familiar with the way people write in Arkansas. I appear to have misstated my point. Of course there is no logical causative connection between not being able to test a hypothesis and its being true or false. However, why should I commit myself to something that can’t be properly tested? The fact that an application of a kata could be deadly does not mean that is what the kata is describing. If you are facing an “unwilling” opponent then making it deadly becomes exponentially more difficult to achieve. Furthermore if I were to make a kata that did contain obvious methods of maiming or killing (attacking obvious weak spots like eyes, neck, wrist, fingers, groin) I guarantee it would not be stylistically similar to karate kata and I don’t think poking anyone in the eye is going to change that.

Martin