Uechi-Ryu.com

Len and other wordsmiths: (If that is a word)

I've been engaged both online and with private e-mail about how one person or another is "dissing" someone else. . . or is getting "personal" with their posts.

I read these same posts and in some cases, interprete the words in a different way than my associates. My questions are "why" and "how can we communicate better and in a more friendly manner."

This forum was created to deal with this question, but when the original moderator tried to teach us how threatening words can be and how fights can be started and avoided by understanding this art of "verbal self-defense", many became threatened by the very subject and with the kind of responses that continue to haunt our forums, let her know that she wasn't welcome.

I believe this is the forum where we can look at specific comments and discuss how the words may not be the best choice. . . providing we are indeed, trying to send positive messages and not scare away visitors.

I post quite a bit and probably say things that are interpreted in ways I had not intended. Please feel free to use anything I've said as fodder for this discussion.

Ian has been singled out by some as a person who might benefit from this forum. Even he has stated that he comes across on these boards as having "rough edges". I'm sure he wouldn't mind having some of his comments used to help illustrate some aspect of "verbal self defense".

Lets try not to hurt anyone's feelings here. The purpose of my posting this, is to make us all aware of how words can hurt... and do! I personally want to lash out at people on occasion, when I read something I feel is targeting me or my beliefs. But doing so will not solve the problem or change the behavior of people. If we want to create an environment where moderators are not bullied off their forums and posters turned into lurkers, we must learn to communicate without using "baited" and "tainted" words designed to cut and destroy individuals.

So Len. . . If you are up to the task and if you are tough enough not to give up like your predecessor, lets give it a try.

Any takers??

------------------
GEM

Sensei:
You bring up a great topic for discussion.

I will surely like to take on this challenge. I never back away from a good challenge. I would never give up and allow myself to be intimidated by anyone’s words. I am not the most articulate writer and I do not claim to be. However I like to think that I respond respectfully and thoughtfully to all posts.

I believe that many who post on these forums are not thinking of the insults that can possible be read in their comments. I am sure that most do not want to come across as being belligerent when replying to a topic that they do not agree with. It is easy to tell people that they should discuss the issues only. It is not easy to NOT bring up the writers character when they harbor thoughts about the writer and why the writer is saying those terrible things.

There are many ways to convey a message. Most people will type their message exactly as they would say it. When you are in a conversation with someone, and they begin to get agitated at what you are saying, you can always apologize and correct what you mean to say because you haven’t really stopped to think about it. When putting your thoughts into writing, there is no way to suddenly change your thinking because you cannot react to what the reader is thinking. You may be thinking that you are telling someone that the sun is shining brightly in the sky and it is a great feeling upon your body, while the reader is reading that a great ball of radiation is causing harm to his skin. Good writing should be likened to making wine. Once the grapes are crushed it must ferment for some time to be good. Sometimes you must filter out the skins before bottling.

Fist off, you should write your posts on a word processor. This makes all your words legible. You can also check the meaning of these words with the synonym program. When writing a post, especially a retort to a post when you do not agree with the writer, you should begin to write your thoughts as if they were an outline. Do not be so concerned with the “little words” as much as the content of what you mean to say. The outline is a dump of knowledge that you wish to convey to the reader. When you have finished with the outline you can check the content for “dissing” words. Try to read the content, as the reader will, instead of as the writer is. Try to put yourself in your readers mind. If there are any words that appear offensive, they probably are to the reader. When you have filtered out your “diss” words you can begin to put your sentences into paragraphs.

For this discussion to be viable, without making it into a creative writing course (spin city?), please posts examples of writing that has caused concerns for readers. I will try to show how different phrases can mean the same without causing the reader to think that they have been chastised.


------------------
Len

I look forward to the progrssion of this thread. I do, however, think that some get their panties in a bunch for no reason other than lack of tolerance for frank talk. For me writing has been a pastime, a profession, and a therapy at various and simultaneous times in my life. I cannot, unfortunately, claim that all my posts have been as well crafted as possible. I can claim to have thought them through and to have said exactly what I meant.

I do not think it is bad for people to get heated in a venue such as this. The problem is that there is a difference between a heated exchange and lack of reasoned thought. I think a person's passion for their position and the reasoning behind it is a good thing to be exposed to. I think a passionate debate on those terms is an excellent learning tool for all involved, including lurkers.


------------------
ted

"I learn by going where I have to go." - Theodore Roethke

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

First things first, George. You may recall that at one point the person became very offensive to martial artists. Also she undermined the very basic tenet of martial arts: use of force for self defense when there is no other way out. She was against any form of violence, such as war, whether justified or not.

Can't say that I blame them for voicing their feelings.

Imagine her chastising America for having responded militarily to the destruction of the twin towers and 3000 Americans.

So lets not inflame the readers to start with by blaming them entirely for that person's failure. This is what causes and will continue to cause bad blood.





------------------
Van Canna

Also I am not sure if it is a good idea to repost the “passages” that caused much anguish to the subject individual for others to comment upon and second guess the real or perceived nature of the offense as supposed.

Doing so may cause more mental anguish, as this is a very personal thing.

There is an old adage in the claims profession when trying to assess damages to an injured party: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote




------------------
Van Canna

Van-
I disagree strongly that Suzette was offensive. (This may get into what we read into messages.)

She had beliefs that she felt very strongly about.

She never once tried to force those beliefs on others. She never said that you, or Panther or anyone would be a moral failure if they resorted to violence... only that she would, because that was the standard she set for herself.

When several people tried to help build some understanding she was gracious, but courageously refused any "wriggle room" in her ethics.

Suzette admitted that she might not be strong enough to live up to her standards. Who is? And who has been so roundly gang attacked for admitting it?

Quote "First things first, George. You may recall that at one point the person became very offensive to martial artists. Also she undermined the very basic tenet of martial arts: use of force for self defense when there is no other way out. She was against any form of violence, such as war, whether justified or not."

Van, what I saw in that forum was a lone woman who was gang attacked because a few people were unwilling or unable to look at another point of view or other options... despite the fact that she may have road tested them.

SHE offended YOU?

Rory

Here is something we can work with...
I will point out places and words in this post that could cause the named person/people to be offended.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Van- Direct use of person's name with dash instead of a : There is no doubt as to who is being confronted. The subject of the post is now the person who is named instead of the topic. Comments should be directed to the topic and not specifically to an individual.

I disagree strongly that Suzette was offensive. (This may get into what we read into messages.)
She had beliefs that she felt very strongly about.

She never once tried to force those beliefs on others. She never said that you,again insinuaton toward person to which post was directed to. or Panther another use of someones name to reinforce that topic is not being discussed as much as individuals. or anyone would be a moral failure if they resorted to violence... only that she would, because that was the standard she set for herself.

When several people tried to help build some understanding she was gracious, but courageously refused any "wriggle room" in her ethics.

Suzette admitted that she might not be strong enough to live up to her standards. Who is? And who has been so roundly gang attacked for admitting it?

Quote "First things first, George. You may recall that at one point the person became very offensive to martial artists. Also she undermined the very basic tenet of martial arts: use of force for self defense when there is no other way out. She was against any form of violence, such as war, whether justified or not."

Van, what I saw in that forum was a lone woman who was gang attacked because a few people were unwilling or unable to look at another point of view or other options... despite the fact that she may have road tested them.

SHE offended YOU?Capitalization use signifies (although it is not written it is generally understood by cyber writers) yelling. Question is retorical. Puts the blame on the subject and leaves open a direct threat upon the person who is the subject to respond.

Rory<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How could this post have been written to get across the message that Rory wants the readers to understand about how HE feels about this topic?

First... The Outline
1. Van- I disagree strongly that Suzette was offensive.
2. Suzette felt very strongly about her beliefs.
3. She never forced those beliefs upon anyone.
4. She never said that anyone would be a moral failure if they resort to violence. Only She wouldf consider herself to be a moral failure if She were to resort to violence.
5. Suzette admitted that she might not be strong enough to live up to her standards. Who is? And who has been so roundly gang attacked for admitting it?
6. Van, what I saw in that forum was a lone woman who was gang attacked because a few people were unwilling or unable to look at another point of view or other options... despite the fact that she may have road tested them.
7. SHE offended YOU?

Now we go back and read the outline and take out the offending statements and words.
1. I disagree strongly that Suzette was offensive. Take out the use of the persons name keep the subject as…Suzette and not…Van
2. I assume that Suzette felt very strongly about her beliefs.
3. In my opinion, She never forced those beliefs upon anyone.
4. It was obvious to me that She never said that anyone would be a moral failure if they resort to violence. Only She would consider herself to be a moral failure if She were to resort to violence.
5. Suzette admitted that she might not be strong enough to live up to her standards. Is there anyone else who also feels this way. Has anyone been gang attacked for admitting it.
6. What I perceived in that forum was a lone woman who was gang attacked because a few people were unwilling or unable to look at another point of view or other options... despite the fact that she may have road tested them.
7. Does anyone believe it was possible that someone offended her?

Here is how the post could have been worded.

<font color =”blue”>I disagree strongly that Suzette was offensive. I assume that Suzette felt very strongly about her beliefs.
In my opinion, She never forced those beliefs upon anyone else. It was obvious to me that She never said that anyone would be a moral failure if they resort to violence. Only She would consider herself to be a moral failure if She were to resort to violence.

Suzette admitted that she might not be strong enough to live up to her standards. Is there anyone else who also feels this way? Has anyone been gang attacked for admitting it?

Quote "First things first, George. You may recall that at one point the person became very offensive to martial artists. Also she undermined the very basic tenet of martial arts: use of force for self defense when there is no other way out. She was against any form of violence, such as war, whether justified or not."

What I perceived in that forum was a lone woman who was gang attacked because a few people were unwilling or unable to look at another point of view or other options... despite the fact that she may have road tested them.

Does anyone believe it was possible that someone offended her?</font>

This is a better post. There are no people named in the post. The feelings of the writer about the subject of the previous post are stressed. Questions have been asked without direct pointing out individuals. Now if one wanted to read it as an insult he/she must stretch he/her imagination to make it seem like he/she were the subject and not Suzette.

I hope that this may help everyone understand how to write and express your feelings about a subject and not be offensive to anybody else who has previously posted or will post a reply.


------------------
Len

Rory,

I don’t have to tell you that this is a very complex subject that reaches down deep into the psyche and sacred held beliefs of persons as perceived through the filters of who they are. So it is critical that words be chosen extremely carefully.

There were many who felt, perhaps not truly offended, but uneasy with Ozarque’s characterization of martial artists as a “macho group”! Much the same as others tend to inflame by making references to “testosterone,” another overused term, freely banded about.

Also making some people uncomfortable, was the concept of pacifism and no violence at all cost, for the most part in the discussion, which has a subliminal effect on victims of previous violence who took refuge into the martial arts.

My little niece was shot in the head in full view of her family trying to defuse a home invasion verbally. So I have a personal axe to grind as to pacifism.

Some read those remarks and felt that, as they could not embrace that belief system, then they should feel as children of a lesser God. Or so the perception went.




------------------
Van Canna

Len,

Great post enumerating the various expressions fly traps we all have a tendency to get mired in. Mostly it has to do with the “emotional high jacking” I have discussed at length on my forum.

Here is another example: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

If I didn’t know you better, Rory, your use of high caps in this context with your direct use of my name, could be interpreted as you shouting at me. Were you?

Of course not. You were just trying to make a point.

Also, I am not sure if bringing morality into the VSD equation was wise as it usually stirs underlying demons.But perhaps it was necessary.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

True, and I respect that, but so do we all.
Very strong beliefs not easily swayed.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

True. But the subliminal message may be one open to misinterpretation, like we did not measure up.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

These are pretty strong words. Gang attacked? I think strong emotional responses should have been anticipated, as failure to persuade should also have been foreseen.

She did mention at one point that she would experience some extreme reactions to her concepts from doctors in seminars. What triggered those doctors?

Road tested? I don’t doubt that she did in the corporate world, as it was discussed, but there were legitimate questions by Martial artists whether any of those principles had been tested in “the face of an uplifted knife” __ do or die survival situation.

There was indication that the techniques had been tested under the extreme stress of the chemical cocktail, but no information was given as to the how _ that could be palatable to martial artists.

The impression that many got was that the person bailed out because it was felt that martial artists as a group were beyond redemption.

So where was the failure:

1] Failure to persuade on her part?

2] Or failure on our part to be persuaded because we belong to a group of macho, testosterone laden martial artists?

*I don’t know__ but perception is everything.




------------------
Van Canna

GEM-Shihan, and all,

VERY interesting topic - and being discussed well and eloquently by the members.

One of the things that I know I do is verbalize what I am saying as I write it, including my intended tone.

Unfortunately for me (and perhaps others) is the fact that a print forum cannot convey vocal tone effectively.

This has been the bane of the USEnet newsgroups for years. Some of the flamewars there could destroy galaxies, believe me.

Perhaps the forum can come to some consensus as to how to transmit tone (such as laughing at what one is saying, sarcastic comment not meant to offend, etc.) in a forum such as this.

Emoticons help, but some folks have trouble using them. I know that I am not familiar with many of the keystroke combinations that are used for the more common ones, such as the BIG, toothy grin.

Maybe we can come to a manner that will work in here and let it spread to the rest of the net. From what I understand, that's how emoticons got started. Maybe we can create "tone-icons" to indicate verbal tone as well?

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

Quote:

"If I didn’t know you better, Rory, your use of high caps in this context with your direct use of my name, could be interpreted as you shouting at me. Were you?"

Well, duh!

Yes, Van, I was. For the same reason that you use the phrases you use to get people to think through their dojo training- because, in my opinion, there is something missing that is really hard to see from the inside.

One of the clues, (quoting again):
"not truly offended, but uneasy with Ozarque’s characterization of martial artists as a “macho group”.

The key word, to me, is 'uneasy'. Uneasiness is a sign, a spark of intuition that says this is unexplored territory. Here, on these forums, is a great place to safely start poking at unexplored territory.

(And we are a testosterone driven macho group... who else has paingasms or TC? Show some pride!)

No matter what anybody wants to believe (this will be the dogmatic statement if you want to parse it, Len) violence is a form of communication. It is probably accurate to say that our Force Continuum is just the end of a larger Communication Continuum.

I feel we all specialize- I routinely handle things at level four that someone else would have to escalate to five, but I have two decades of grappling, locks and takedowns. Someone else, a specialist in VSD, may have been able to defuse the situation. I want to learn from the specialists.

Van, I am sorry to hear about your niece. You already know that the home invasion crime scene is one of my nightmares.

Apologies if this gets too close to the bone- but what other force options would have given your niece a better chance?

How many people have tested anything- verbal, physical, personal weapon or sidearm in “the face of an uplifted knife”? We both know that alot more armed people have been talked into handcuffs than have been wrestled into them. Safer.

From Suzette on another site: (which is similar to what Len has already suggested)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Hostile language in English almost always has two identifying characteristics:

lots and lots of personal vocabulary and personal comments.
lots of extra stress on words and parts of words.
Responding with more of the same is like throwing gasoline on a fire; it gives your attacker everything needed to feed the argument and make it escalate. There's a very different way of talking (from the work of Virginia Satir), that I call Computer Mode. To use Computer Mode: You avoid everything personal; you talk in platitudes and generalities and hypotheticals; and you keep your body language -- including the tune your words are set to -- neutral and controlled. Computer Mode defuses verbal attacks because it doesn't give the attacker what he or she wants and it doesn't give the attacker any fuel with which to keep the altercation going. There is no safer stance.
Suppose somebody has come at you with an attack like "WHY can't I ever FIND anything around this place? Do you HIDE STUFF just to be annoying, or WHAT??" Don't take the bait. Don't start claiming that you don't hide things; don't start explaining your system for putting things in their places; don't start yelling that the attacker is the one who misplaces everything or is just too stupid to be able to find anything; don't just yell, "Get out of my FACE, you creep!" All those responses reward the attacker and make you a participating verbal victim. Instead, say something like this:

"People get irritated when they can't find things."
"It's very annoying not to be able to find things."
"Misplaced tools [or books, or supplies, or whatever] cause problems in every workplace [or home, or clinic, or whatever]."
"Nothing is more distressing than having to hunt for things."
No matter how many more times the attacker throws hostile language at you, continue to answer only with another response in Computer Mode. If the hostile strategy has always worked in the past, it may take the attacker a while to understand that it's not going to work this time. Eventually, the attacker will run out of steam and give up -- and again, will make a mental note that you're no fun as a victim and shouldn't be chosen for that role in the future.
You'd be amazed at how many potential arguments I've nipped in the bud with a single meaningless emergency platitude. The attacker makes the first hostile move; and I answer, solemnly, "You know, you can't tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks." Many, many times, the next line from the poor soul attacking has been, "I never thought of it like that." Almost every time, the argument has ended right there -- for an impressive savings in time and energy all around, and far less air pollution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A great way to learn how poorly folks communicate is to watch MTV's the Real World maybe...twice. Then watch COPS and you'll see the LEO's using LOTS of VSD to try and diffuse situations until it gets physical - then they go from zero to domination in a heartbeat.

It really seems to come down on the side of "not taking the bait" when someone is baiting you. Yet that is still the hardest thing in the world to do. Why?

Oh - if you're looking for a recap of what Suzette thinks VSD is, please visit: http://www.howstuffworks.com/vsd.htm/printable

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

In complete agreement Dana. I witnessed such a situation once. And as Rory explains, many armed people have been talked into handcuffs, so VSD is a critical tool in the force continuum concept.

But the “domination” factor does suggest force resolution as the last resort. I think this is what Suzette was presenting as a non-acceptable option that martial artists found objectionable.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

The answer is given by Goleman’s “emotional intelligence” book. It boils down to emotional high jacking, where your primal brain bypasses your conscious brain. Good book should be mandatory for every martial artist to read.

Also what Suzette did not address, from what I can recall, is how to overcome the tendency in some of us to choke and sputter words and thoughts in a falsetto when under stress, when the brain seems to shut down and you can’t think straight.

Some people are better served by keeping their mouths shut when so confronted.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Fair enough Rory. But how to do it in an effective manner that dispels our innate prejudices?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Agree. It reminds me of the hostage situations in movies where the VSD expert is called in. But he is not operating out of fear as he is backed up by a swat team ready to pounce.

Same for police officers or other security personnel in a variety of settings. They are better able to keep the emotional highjacking in check, and therefore a grip on runaway emotions, because they are backed up by weapons and by associates.

The question that comes to mind is whether the officer/security officer would be just as effective when off duty, unarmed, and alone __ turning a dark corner and finding him face to face with three punks with guns and knives. I am sure their VSD training would help, but what of the common man faced with the same situation?

Will they all be able to articulate at all under the grip of the extreme chemical cocktail?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Thanks Rory, and no need to apologize. The horror of it all was when the invaders were forcing their way into the front door as the child and the mother were trying to talk them out of it and the husband was looking in vain for a backup weapon which did not exist because his wife was rabid antigun/antiviolence and had “prohibited” her husband to keep force of arms in the house in spite of a previous rash of break-ins.

Would a gun and intent to exercise a force response action have changed things? Who knows? But this is something that is still eating away at husband and wife today. Their marriage is but a ghost of the past relationship they once had.

And, yes, now the wife allows a gun in the house and has given “permission” to her husband to use violence in self-defense.




------------------
Van Canna

Perhaps I should crawl back under a rock and ignore this thread, but when have I ever been known to ignore someone calling my name?

<u>Testa-sensei:</u> I don't envy you on this one! You did a pretty good job of pointing out the potential areas of inflammation and how they may be modified. Best of luck...

<u>GEM-sensei:</u> It was never my intention on that previous thread (which you've reposted) to be insulting or abusive in any way. I've re-read that thread multiple times now and must say that I stand by what I wrote. I apologize if my posts in that thread (or my lack of contrition) have caused anyone to feel unwelcome. Regarding Ian... we have our differences of opinion, but I feel that he respects mine and I respect his. There simply aren't nearly as many "issues" between us as some people seem to think. We're pretty civil in general and, at least from my perspective, we've given each other lots of "food for thought". If anything I've ever written has offended you, my sincerest apologies. Please feel free to e-mail me or even admonish me openly if I have or ever do "step out of line".

<u>Rory:</u> You've been there. You don't just talk the talk, you walk the walk. I hope you know that I have the utmost admiration and respect for you. However, I must say that, having re-read the aforementioned thread, I don't believe that I was a party to "gang attacking" anyone. The questions, opinions, confusion, and beliefs that I wrote in that thread were real. They were not meant to attack in any way. I was sincerely attempting to gain an understanding of a belief and position which I percieved to be completely contradictory. In fact, when re-reading that thread, I distinctly recalled (and another poster on that thread stated) that Van Canna-sensei had asked legitimate questions concerning the efficiacy of VSD in the real world situations of mind-numbing street violence which were never truly answered. I have found, and your own posts have concurred, that there are exactly those types of situations that Canna-sensei was wondering about... the types of "street violence" situations where no manner of VSD is going to stop the perp from going physical. Canna-sensei has been there, you have been there, and I have been there... all of us with varying degrees of success depending on situtation, circumstance, and event.

Personally, I never had a problem with the characterization that martial artists are (in general) overly macho or overly testosterone-laden. Perhaps those martial artists who (IMNSHO) are more directly insulted by those statements (I.E.: women martial artists who I sincerely doubt fit those characterizations in most instances... at least the ones that I know and admire), would take issue. In my case, I could care less about such generalizations and stereotypes. I've been painted with the broad brush of erroneous stereotyping enough times in my life that I usually just consider the source and ignore such things. (David Moy is a fantastic example, which I think of at those times, of how to let such comments fade into the dust.) I had a friend who espoused the position that any use of violence was a moral failure for them, but would respond physically in certain circumstances. I was attempting to understand what I felt was a contradiction. I made no "moral judgement" on anyone's choice to be a self-proclaimed "radical pacifist" (an admirable stance as I already wrote in that other thread). My postings were my attempts and my need to understand something that I have been unable to reconcile in my own mind. In re-reading and recalling that thread (and at risk of "patting myself on the back"), I must say that keeping the forum in mind, I intentionally didn't push the descrepancies in the position and counter-arguments that were given. I simply wanted to understand and reconcile those beliefs so that I could better understand my friend.

I hope that clarifies my purpose in those posts and puts to rest any thoughts that I had anything against anyone personally. I didn't and I don't. We each have our own beliefs. I simply feel that I have gained my beliefs from traveling down a truly reasoned and logical path based on my life experiences. YMMV, but I feel that if we both discuss something from a logical, reasonable, fact-based, thought-out point of view that we should come to the same (or at least very close) conclusions. With that in mind, I will also tell you that since those posts, my belief in my positions as stated in that thread are even more adamant. Is there a place for VSD in a confrontation? Hell yes! There's a place for VSD in everyday life! Is VSD the ending of every confrontation? Hopefully, but I, personally will not bet the lives and safety of my loved ones on that result! If I'm ever again confronted with a "mind-numbing street violence" situation targeting myself or my loved ones will I view it as a "moral failure" if there is a need to transform a living carpophage into fertilizer? Hell no!

<u>Canna-sensei:</u>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Sometimes you get the opportunity to try VSD and sometimes you don't even get the chance to speak at all... I just wish all the self-proclaimed "experts" (who I often wonder if they've even ever been in that alleyway) would understand your (and my) point about the difference between "justifiable" and "UNjustifiable" violence (and the unavoidable need for a physical response in some situations).

Take care and be good to each other...

Mattson-sensei,
First and foremost, thank you for putting this forum together and setting the standards of behavior here. This is fantastic- I didn't believe it was possible to respect people this much without actually sweating or bleeding with them.

Anywhere else, this could so easily have gotten personal.

Panther-
Good to read you again. I understand and respect your points. I can only say that on reading the original thread I thought that Suzanne had answered the questions but that her answers weren't being accepted- to the point that I felt a need to defend her, both then and now.

Quoting Panther: "but I feel that if we both discuss something from a logical, reasonable, fact-based, thought-out point of view that we should come to the same (or at least very close) conclusions."

I can't agree. Especially dealing with violence, personal experience is just idiosuncratic. It's just too friggin' wierd. The best example, for me- I was hit in the bag of the head with a six-foot tamping steel once... work accident, not an attack... but it had no effect other than I turned snarling and went to attack someone who wasn't there. No amount of reason, logic, or other people's experience will convince me that smacking someone in the back of the head with a crowbar will end the fight or that there is no point in training for that scenario because you'll be dead anyway.

I know that that is the way the logic flows, but experience is a mountain and logic doesn't flow up hill.

Anyway, as long as you are here and Van and others, there is too much experience to say that VSD is THE answer.

It's the BEST answer. Less paperwork and you don't get sued, but not the answer.

Van talked about the advantage of uniforms and back-up. I'd like to add training. Even some worthless dojo ballerina training can and has given someone the confidence to make VSD work. Diplomacy works better when you have the biggest army in the free world. On a personal level, diplomacy can work just as well if you can place the doubt in the threats mind.

Rambling now.

Thanks, everyone.

Rory