whynot

I have not checked this website in a few months. It cracks me up tha this debate is still going when it started in November.

I have never heard of dropping a sandwich from the Empire State Building, but I have heard of dropping a penny from it. That theory was tested on a show called Myth Busters on the Discovery Channel, and it was concluded that it would not kill anyone or cause them brain damage; it would just hurt a lot.

Treebranch, I do not know how much of this was directed at me, but I will attempt to address what you have said none the less. Never did I try and make the general claim that newer is better, though looking back at my posts, I can see how that may have been assumed from what I had written. What I was trying to get across is that newer is not necessarily worse; some things new are as effective, but through different means to the same end. You mention Kano in your post, and I assume that you are referring to the founder of Judo, whose first name I am not going to murder the spelling of. I actually consider Judo to be a newer martial art (I am using martial art to cover all forms of fighting here and do not wish to get into the details of what is an art and what is a sport), even though it is derived from a much older art. When I talked of an old art versus a new art, I meant any art that was older than any other art and vice versa. Comparing an art that takes years to become skilled in to an art that takes months to become skilled in is an entirely different matter and was not what I was refering to in old versus new. In actuality, the age of an art has no real equivalence to how long it takes to become versed in; Judo is more contemporary than Muay Thai, yet in most cases it takes longer to reach a competent skill level in Judo than it does in Muay Thai. I will agree that there are several people whom desire a quick fix martial art. Not all of these people are in the same martial art though. There are people out there who want to brag about being a blackbelt. It does not matter to them if they know the first thing about fighting; they just want to impress a few people by being able to say that. It matters not to them what style they learn, only what style will get them there the quickest. All styles have schools that will oblige them; none are exempt from this sad bit of truth. New or old, it does not matter here. There are many people who like to think that because someone else has beaten someone using the same style that they study, that they can in turn do the same thing to others. Again, every style, new or old, has this problem. Everyone likes to talk up their art. In truth, claims of someone having a bigger, better, faster something than someone else does not stop with martial arts. Examples of this are Chevy vs. Ford, Ski-doo vs. Polaris, or Honda vs. Yamaha. It is a problem with the human ego that transcends all aspects of life, including martial arts. This problem is not exclusive to practioners of new martial arts and practioners of martial arts common in NHB competitions; practioners of old, or traditional if you prefer, martial arts are just as guilty. Is there really a significant difference between claiming a martial is better because it is proven in the UFC and claiming a martial art is better because it is a few hundred years old and was proven effective in feudal Japan? Are both not claims of superiority made upon the merits of someone else? One should never assume their art is superior to another art based on another's personal results and experiences. One can, however, choose an art that they find works for them, become the best they can in that art, and make a decision based on their own results and experiences whether or not one art is superior to another art for their own needs, purposes, and abilities. What is superior for one person may not be superior for another person; the matter of the art they choose being superior to all other arts is therefore nullified. I apologize for being so wordy, but I like to be thorough in what I say. Hopefully this helps make clearer where I stand. As you can see we are not polar opposites in our beliefs.

Cymry, I think you missed what I was getting at in my post. As I said before, when I think of combat, I think of military combat. When I think of military combat, I think of fighting wars. Swinging a katana is far different than firing an assault rifle. Shooting cannonballs at an enemy is far different than launching a cruise missle at them. You are taking the word combat and supplementing it for the word fight. In my opinion those are two completely separate things; perhaps they are not in yours. In the context that I use the word combat, I do not think that you can argue that combat today is the same as combat of the past. If, however, you want to use your example, a right hook thrown by the average person today is likely to be harder than a right hook thrown by the average person two hundred years ago. I do not see how one can deny that modern science and medicine has increased the strength of the average person. Nor can I see how one can try and argue that the medical practices of three hundred years ago are as good as the medical practices of today to fix a jaw broken by that right hook. What is the relevance of that? Some fighting manuevers do not cause the same lasting damage that they once may have, nor are some as lethal as they once may have. A person stands a much better chance of surviving a knife to the gut today than they did two hundred years ago.

A few things to think about. Does the fact that one martial art is older than another martial art automatically make it a more effective art? I do not believe this to be true. Combat five hundred years ago is completely different than today's combat. There are a number of reasons for this, which were mainly brought on through advancements in science. Blows that may have been lethal in feudal Japan might be cured with relative ease with today's medicine. Obviously science has provided humanity with weapons more efficient at killing people. Science has even taught the masses about the benefits of strength training, vitamins, dietary supplements, and living healthy, and in general people are bigger and stronger than they were a few centuries ago. There is little to no resemblance between past and present forms of combat. Another question is, what is everyone defining as combat here? When I hear the word combat, I think of militaries fighting, not a street brawl. If the definition is meant for military fighting, then I would have to argue that there really are not any effectice martial arts. Some training may at some point in time be useful, but for the most part, if you do not have a gun, then you are done for. I would put my money on a trained soldier with an M-16 or an AK-47 over a highly skilled practioner of any martial art, any day. If one is refering to a street brawl as combat, then I would argue that the age of a martial art is irrelevant. Combat in feudal Japan (I am referring to this because I have read it being referred to in early posts stating ancient martial arts are better for the reason that they are ancient) is different than a modern day bar brawl; people today generally do not carry swords and wear light armor. I am in no way trying to discredit traditional martial arts, for some of them have adapted to a degree and many times they are still effective. Instead, what I am trying to suggest, is that even though modern martial arts do not have the history that traditional martial arts have, they are none the less still effective because they are created for modern day fighting, and should not be discredited as easily as they sometimes are. No, many of them do not train in weapon defenses, but I do not know anyone who has been in a fight involving weapons, and would venture a guess that the vast majority of fights do not. This does not mean that one should not train weapons defenses, just that a person is not completely hopeless without the knowledge. Adaptation is a necessary part of growth. Something that is new is not automatically of less value than something old. A minute man's musket could kill a man as easily as could a 9mm bereta, but its age and constant use in war does not make it a better weapon. In turn, something that is not battle proven does not mean it will fail in battle or be less effective than something that is. Only two nuclear weapons have ever been used in the context of war. Several thousands were made since then. Are these less effective? Though they are not battle proven, there is no arguement that they are far more devastating than their predecessors. A final thought after all of this rambling. Can a person with no arms ever become a complete and well rounded fighter?

It seems like there should be a way to shape the charge to blast outwards; that is how claymores work if I am not mistaken. Of course, I have no idea how difficult it would be to accomplish this if it even could be. Claymores are military grade; suicide bombs generally are not.

Warp Spider, I like the hug idea and thought myself that would be an effective way to do someone in, but I did not think of the ballistic vest.

Sano, I will assume that it was me that you were talking to when you said that I lack the guts, so again I will ask, what is with the personal attack? Does it just upset you do much that I disagreed with your methods that you feel the need to lash out at me for it? And how can you tell that I lack guts? You do not really know anything about me. Also, I am curious how you can tell that I am just talk? If you can, please show me, or direct me to, a post of mine that was me just running my mouth about being tough, because I honestly do not remember ever posting anything of the sort. But if you can show me one where I rambled on about being tough and hardcore, then I will agree with you that I talk too much. As my memory serves me though, I never made any such claims, so your accusations are way off based. I do not talk tough. I do not act hardcore. I have nothing I feel that I need to prove. Do you have something to prove? Is that why you feel the need to talk trash to people over the internet because they had a civil disagreement with you? At least I thought what I said was civil, and again I ask you to show me where I was not if indeed I was not. Otherwise it seems silly to start trash talking over some trivial subject that you read on a martial arts message board on the internet to someone you have never met and know nothing about. I am still standing by the fact that there are not any cities in the U.S. or Canada, so most of North America, where someone cannot live their whole life without fear of a violent death at the hands of another person. Is New York one of these cities (I am assuming that is the city you were referring to in your last post)? Yes, it is. Are there parts of New York where a person who did not know what they were walking into, or even if they did, would have to worry about making it through the night? Yes, there are; you named one yourself. As a whole, however, New York is a relatively safe city. If it were not, the millions of visitors and tourists that come to New York would go some place else. Would it be cowardly of me if I went to New York and did not visit the place you invited me to? Not in my opinion. If it is that dangerous, why would I go there? Why would anyone go there if they did not have to? Is there some really excellent restaurant there that is literally to die for? The only reason that I can think of for someone to needlessly go there would be that they had some sort of complex where they felt the needed to prove they were tough. I hear the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea is a pretty rough place. Are people that do not live around there, or do not go there to prove themselves, not as tough as the people who do live around there or have been there? No, they are just smart for not putting themselves in that situation. I feel that I have gone on long enough now. I have left you some specific questions, as I did before (like why a situation should be escalated to violence if it did not need to be). If you would like to continue this showing a little more respect, or at least civilness, than you have been, then feel free to respond to those questions. If not, then I suggest that you should take your aggression out when you train, not over the internet.

Warp Spider, I do have to agree that the look on someone's face as people spilled unexpectedly out of a couple of vans in full tactical gear would be pretty priceless. It may be over the top, but it would be fun to witness. I disagree, to an extent, the degree of effectiveness that suicide bombing can have. I will concede that it is more effective in confined spaces, such as a bus, but that is not the only reason that buses are attacked; they are also full of many people within a small blast radius. The scenario I had in mind when I brought the possibility of suicide bombing up was one in which someone and a few of their friends had a face to face confrontation with the stalker person, without weapons of their own, or a tactical team for backup. By face to face, I mean that they all withing, or very close to, normal striking range for hands and feet. In this case, I would think that a fifty pound explosive with a few pounds of nails attached would be effective enough in killing or seriously injuring all involved parties. If the nails were placed around the suicide bombers entire body, and the explosive were on both the person's front and back, the blast and shrapnel would be enough to kill, or seriously injure someone within normal striking range. For the part about the police being involved, there is a good chance, especially if one lives in a densely populated area with more pressing matters, that they may not give much attention to a situation such as this. However, if they do have on record that this situation was going on, and the time came to take matters into one's own hands, then at least one has some kind of defense in court if the stalker person tries to press assault charges after they are taken out. It can be pointed out that there was a persistant problem with the stalker that escalated to necessitate force, and the police had documentation of this very problem, yet did not act on it themselves. In my opinion, it is just covering a possible liability, and it is better to have thought through all scenarios than to simply disregard one.

I agree with you Warp Spider: there really are not any cities in the U.S or Canada that are so violent that a person could not live their entire lives there without having a brush with death from another person attacking them. I also agree that Sarajevo is a better example, as is Tel Aviv or Baghdad, but I have never visited those places. The point I was trying to make is that big cities are not as harsh as they are sometimes made out to be.

Also, how is it you can so thoroughly tell everything about me from a mere 19 (this will make 20) posts to be able to tell me with such certainty that I lack the qualities to survive in New York or Chicago. You have piqued my curiosity and I wonder what it is that one needs to survive in these cities, and of those things, what do I lack? Perhaps I do lack such traits, but perhaps I do not. You have already erroneously judged where I live; it may be that you have misjudged my mettle too.

What is with the personal attack sano? As a matter of fact I do live in the U.S. and I do not live in Wisconsin. I have noticed that there are people on this board from Wisconsin that may take offense to what seemed to be a derogatory statement towards residents of that state. As for surviving a day in New York, I am quite sure that I could handle it. In Chicago, I lasted several days. Toronto, Detroit, and Las Vegas too. But really, perhaps you can explain to me why the situation should be escalated if it does not need to be. I promise I will listen with an open mind, though I do reserve the right to defend my position. In my opinion, it is naive to think that you can show up with the intention to pound someone without knowing any details about them, and think that you have the upper hand.

Another thought: who says that this person wants to cause you physical harm? That is a dangerous conclusion to be jumping to. Do not take it to that level if it does not need to be brought there. All you know right now is that this person wants to get under your skin; not that they want you hurt and/or dead. Do not be the one to escalate the situation; testosterone is a terrible thing to think with.

I think that I should stress again that meeting this person without the authorities being involved is a bad idea. You would be on their turf and they would be holding all of the cards. Sure, you can try and show up with friends, but what is going to keep them from doing the same? Also, if this person knows so many intimate details about you and your personal life, how do you know for sure that they do not know who all of your friends are? It is entirely possible that this person could stake the area out before hand and notice that a bunch of people associated with you just happen to be hanging around for some reason. That would immediately clue the person off and all they would have to do is walk away; you would never even know if he/she was there in the first place because you know nothing about them. And if you people spouting the kill or be killed mentality want to take it to that extreme, try this scenario: the person shows up with a bomb strapped to their chest. Unless you and your friends can mutate your skin to steel like Colussus, you are all dead. Sure that is extreme, but so is the idea of meeting this person whom you know absolutely nothing about and thinking that you can take them out with complete ease. So what should you do? Tell your parents, tell the police, document when the person is bothering you. We do not live in the wild west where it is survival of the fittest. We live in a time in which it is survival of the smartest. You want the authorities on your side, so get them on it. Pounding some person you may or may not know with a dozen of your friends around is not going to win their favor, regardless of whether the person has been harrassing you. How will you prove it? They will have no record of the harrassment, no documentation of it, just your word, and that will not be good enough.

If the person persists in bothering you, you could always notify the police if you believe it to be serious. Print off some of the things that he/she has IMed you so that you have evidence, and take it to them. Harrassment is harrassment, regardless of whether it is done face to face or over the internet. Meeting the person is a bad idea. If you choose to go that route, you are then playing by his/her rules and are handing all of the power to him/her. He /she knows who you are and knows all kinds of details about you; you do not know a thing about them.