Well John, I'll accept your use of "dead" is the opposite of "alive". Nicely put.
But I don't think it's any newsflash that your other terms for kata leave nothing to the imagination when it comes to your (perhaps contextually understandable) contempt for this training method.
I'm not asking you to like kata or see it as necessarily offering you something. All I'm asking you to do is to open enough to consider that some of us can and do put kata to a useful combative purpose (even if it isn't necessary for fighting per se or won't ever appeal to you). You might even show a bit of interest in why we kata people bother with it. Who knows, you might learn something - even if it's just about how/why other people do things differently.
Suffice it to say that I am actually in agreement with many of your posts as I've told you before. And I don't want the debate curtailed. I just want it to take a positive direction (as you frequently ask yourself). The problem is that you use language (I'm sure unwittingingly) that is fairly harsh towards us "kata types". No skin of my nose. I get hate mail all the time for my blog (the internet is full of weirdos who do things like that). I've had years of defendants shouting abuse and spitting at me for doing my job. I'm thicker-skinned than my posts seem to suggest. If I were really angry I wouldn't bother posting anything. And if I have been rude or overly strident I'm going to admit it - as I have done many times (let the record show).
But my central point is that people aren't going to debate things that I think would be useful to explore if kata/tma debate ends with "it's useless - forget it". I get the feeling my own (subtle) distinctions are frequently drowned out and missed in this context.
Remember that people aren't necessarily arguing the points about kata that you and many others who are from a Western combat sports background seem assume. A bit of textual/visible "respect" - only in not appearing to assume that we "don't get it" would be not only appreciated, but it might encourage some quieter forum members to air their views. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them weren't $hit scared of your pragmatic arguments. This is especially so when the subtlties of kata people's arguments are lost in the "prove it" invitations (which often wrongly assume they are arguing the "necessity" or "superiority" of kata over partner resistance training). Maybe people did argue such things in the past (there's no monopoly on logic with any type of martial artist). This would account for your frustration. But I'm not arguing anything like that here, nor has anyone lately as far as I can tell - although I stand to be corrected.
So sometimes you have to stamp your foot for effect.
Now I'd like to move on and invite you to consider my points made about focus in karate punches. If you want a summary I'll try to accomodate your request, but it's not a long article by any stretch and is nicely illustrated with pictures and videos.
That should give you some idea of why karateka and other tma punch the way they do (ie. why they have a different punching "delivery system") - even if you and others don't like it particularly.