Another polo prize

Sensei Canna offers insight into the real world of self defense!

Moderator: Van Canna

Another polo prize

Postby Guest » Tue May 18, 2004 1:01 am

I have no problem with consenting adults viewing decapitation. Too each their own. Some may not find the following clip…graphic enough…personal choice….I guess it’s always up to some. @#&$%^! Editor..

http://banffuechiryu.tripod.com/collectingheads2.wmv

Not a lot of blood in this decapitation scene….but I guess if one really wants to go Hollywood there is always “Kill Bill” 1 & 2, now those decapitations are bloody. Then again we can seek it else where if we choose too. I wonder why the director/editor chooses to depict the engorged hose and the oil spewing onto the asphalt. Was this filler or was he trying to symbolize something?

I personally don’t buy into all of Grossman’s theories. His Book on Killing is a good read, but I view it as one mans opinion, without peer review. Good science requires peer review. Much the same as my posts on this forum, they are my opinions.

I do not believe we can become at ease with death by watching the real deal or Hollywood’s versions on the tube. I don’t believe Grossman has proven this point, nor do I believe his peers have validated this assumption.

But it’s still cool for consenting adults to view what they wish.

I'm surprised by the reactions to decaptiation...I remember a day when Tony had to take images off this site and now we are encouraged to seek them out...the times are a changin.

Personaly if it was my countrymen going under the knife I'd turn the whole area into a land of glass.

Laird

And Lairds opinion as well.
Last edited by Guest on Sat May 22, 2004 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guest
 

Postby Stryke » Tue May 18, 2004 1:15 am

Wow see the chi !!!!!
Stryke
 

Postby Guest » Tue May 18, 2004 3:17 am

Ya mate hard to deny it's exsistance when you see it on film like this. :wink:
Guest
 

Postby Bill Glasheen » Tue May 18, 2004 9:33 am

OK, gentlemen, you've had your fun.

Now, could you possibly reconsider the first post? Lt. Col. David Grossman is a well-published author and researcher, and a subject matter expert. He has been referenced repeatedly (in a positive light) by the likes of Van and Darren. His books come complete with detailed references to the peer-reviewed literature in each chapter, including his own peer-reviewed work. The first post here borders on the inaccurate, and I believe reflects badly on us all.

*****

Van, feel free (please) to delete my post when the situation is rectified. Thank you, sir.

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
 
Posts: 17308
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Postby Guest » Tue May 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Glad you could see the humor intended in the film Bill. Others have suggested you have no sense of haha, they are obviously wrong. You have always struck me as rather witty and you have been known to put a smile on everyones face from time to time.

As far as deleting your post Bill, I'm confused did some make a rule that our posts can not appear on the same thread together?

This rewritting of history is a dangerous device.I'd rather let the truth of our words and our opinions hang in cyberspace unchanged. I think everyone would prefer to see bothsides presented on threads. This deleting of posts I find offensive. If one party can remove a post they are pretty much free to spin doctor what ever they wish after as house keeping. This kind of like mushroom management, (keep them in the dark and feed them schit)

This is just my opinion on this growing practice, I'm not saying anyone is being unethical.

But I'm confused, why you would want Van to delete your post? BTW you can delete your own post, it's easy I did it other day when GEM felt I had turned one of your post into a joke. I disagreed but to keep the peace I removed it.

On to Grossman, I did not discount the mans entire work. I find the work interesting and agree with much of it Bill. What I said was...........
I personally don’t buy into all of Grossman’s theories. His Book on Killing is a good read, but I view it as one mans opinion, without peer review. Good science requires peer review. Much the same as my posts on this forum, they are my opinions.

I do not believe we can become at ease with death by watching the real deal or Hollywood’s versions on the tube. I don’t believe Grossman has proven this point, nor do I believe his peers have validated this assumption.
This is my personal opinion Bill. I'm permitted one am I not?

I think it's okay for me to not endorse the work 100%. Just because the work is referenced by you and Van from time to time does not make it irrefutable.

My problem is some the second half of the book, some of the assumptions and conclusions Grossman suggests for the increased firing ratios in Viet Nam and in the Killing in America section.

I don't buy into the it's TV and Video that's desensitiving people. Peer review Bill as you well know is when a jury of your peers, experts in the field review your data and reach the same conclusions as you have. They deem the work valid.They suport the theories presented, they deem it good science. I may be wrong I did find one other doctor on the back jacket recommending the book. But thats not peer review.

Just because Grossman references a great deal of peer reviewed literature does not validate his work. It's the assumptions, theories and conclussions he puts forth in his book based on this literature that requires peer review.

Grossmans work not other previous work. It's pretty standard amoung academics to reference each other, giving great were it's due. This does not make any new assumptions unsuported by data or review automatically valid. You may choose to acccept everything in this work as gosple, I do not.

In his Book Grossman states
To prove that TV causes violence you must conduct a controlled, double-blind experiment in which,if you are successful, you will cause people to commit murder. Clearly to perform such an experiment with human beings is unethical and largely impossible.
well it's impossible to disagree with that statement. But I'd also say that it's convient. One can claim it's all in TV, but I can not prove it so just take it as fact. Grossman postulates that TV is conditioning us to kill, but it can not be proven. This I see as a big problem with his work.

I was very comfortable with his work until he started making these jumps. Grossman is a good read, much of it valid Bill, however I don't accept it as the holy grail. I do not think video conditioning is going to turn out to be the holy hand grenade that Grossman sugests. I do not think he is the last word on killing.I do not think Johhny will turn out to be a better killing machine on the battlefield because he's watched lots of snuff films or tv

Btw I think you can be a 3%er with out being a sociopath.But we best save that thread for another day.


Van, feel free (please) to delete my post when the situation is rectified
What exactly needs to be rectified Bill? What is the situation, and how do you think it needs fixing?
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 27, 2004 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guest
 

Postby Van Canna » Tue May 18, 2004 4:03 pm

OK, gentlemen, you've had your fun


Specifically, what does this mean, Bill?

The first post here borders on the inaccurate, and I believe reflects badly on us all.


What exactly reflects badly on us all?

Van, feel free (please) to delete my post when the situation is rectified. Thank you, sir.


What is this “situation” that needs rectifying__

And why would I want to delete your post?
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45723
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Postby AE Moores » Thu May 20, 2004 5:39 pm

To my knowledge Lt. Col. Grossman's book "On Killing," has not gone through an "official" peer review. But that does not mean his research, ideas and other written works have not gone through peer review.

The following is a short list of journals and associations that Col. Grossman has presented papers to for peer review. The Pediatric Academic Society, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and The American Medical Association. Add that to the more than 300 days of public speaking he does through the year to various medical associations, police and military associations, in my personal opinion his work has gone through more peer review, both official and unoffical, than most.

"...well written on a subject that has never before, to my knowledge, been drafted for public consumption."
General Westmoreland, Supreme Allied Commander in Vietnam

From attending over 12 hours of lectures, reading three of his books, personal conversations and listening to his bullet proof mind CD it's been my take that Col. Grossman feels that where media violence has it's impact is within our youth. The ones that are more influenced. He has always said that media violence ALONE may not turn our youth into killers/violent criminals, but that there are many factors involved. Genetics, family etc.

Col. Grossman has always related violence and media violence to heart disease. There are many factors that attribute to heart disease. Genetics, nutrition, exercise or lack there of, alcohol, smoking etc. Not just one of these factors will automatically guarantee heart disease 100% of the time. Most likely it's a combination of things. Col. Grossman's opinion is the same for media violence and our youth.

There has now been to date over 2000 academic research papers written on whether media violence is a major facter in whether our youth will turn violent. Of the over 2000 papers only 18 did not see the correlation between media violence and violence within our youth. (12 of the 18 were sponsored by various media organizations.)

Like many of said in this thread that we all have the right to our own opinion. It is my opinion that Col. Grossman's work has gone through plenty of peer review, is backed up by over hundreds of fellow researchers in over 2000 academic papers and by statements by the American Pediatric Association, American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

For those interested in reading some of Col. Grossman's numerous academic papers, both peer review and not, you can go to his web site www.killology.com A great source of information.

BTW, Col. Grossman's next book "On Combat" is a must read. It blows "On Killing" out of the water. The book should be out this summer to the public.
Shugyo Training Camp
www.atlantickarate.com
User avatar
AE Moores
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:56 pm
Location: Portsmouth, NH

Postby Van Canna » Thu May 20, 2004 10:08 pm

BTW, Col. Grossman's next book "On Combat" is a must read. It blows "On Killing" out of the water. The book should be out this summer to the public.


Andrew, what will the book be all about?

Will it be useful to civilian martial arts practitioners?

Will it blow away traditional concepts or be complementary?
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45723
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Postby AE Moores » Fri May 21, 2004 3:01 pm

As promised Col. Grossman, I can't go into the details of the content of the book. I can say though that many folks that are on this forum will enjoy the research presented as far as the physical, emotional and psychological aspects of fighting for ones life. It has a place for anyone that is in the martial arts, law enforcement, military and medical/psychology field.

I'll let you know when it first hits book stores.
Shugyo Training Camp
www.atlantickarate.com
User avatar
AE Moores
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:56 pm
Location: Portsmouth, NH

Postby AE Moores » Fri May 21, 2004 3:03 pm

oopsy....happy trigger finger.
Last edited by AE Moores on Fri May 21, 2004 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Shugyo Training Camp
www.atlantickarate.com
User avatar
AE Moores
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:56 pm
Location: Portsmouth, NH

Postby Bill Glasheen » Fri May 21, 2004 7:18 pm

Thanks, Andrew. Must be fun working with the man.

Looking forward to seeing you in NE in a few weeks.

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
 
Posts: 17308
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Postby Bill Glasheen » Fri May 21, 2004 7:28 pm

Van et al

I was in Minneapolis for 3 days, and could not delete my original post if the anchor post was modified.

No matter... Andrew supplied the additional information needed to clarify what I attempted to communicate.

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
 
Posts: 17308
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Postby Stryke » Fri May 21, 2004 9:27 pm

He has always said that media violence ALONE may not turn our youth into killers/violent criminals, but that there are many factors involved. Genetics, family etc.



I agree with this , I beleive competition is a factor here

Andrew supplied the additional information needed to clarify what I attempted to communicate.


I liked Andrew comments and I beleive there on the mark .

The first post here borders on the inaccurate, and I believe reflects badly on us all.


I still dont see what reflects badly on us all , having an opinion ?

ahh well , hope your trip went well :wink:
Stryke
 

Postby Bill Glasheen » Sat May 22, 2004 5:36 am

The trip went very well, thank you. Virginia feels like you can cut the humidity with a knife right now. It was heaven in Minnesota. Perfect weather.

And those Scandinavians are something to look at... Very special people. Plus this company I'm working with has a lot of good people.

On to the posts... Opinions are fine.

However if you look closer at the individual discussed, he's more than some average bloke writing a book. You won't find very many folks that have as many peer-reviewed publications in quality journals, and are as respected in their field. Don't take my word for it though, check it out for yourself.

I agree that we shouldn't take anyone's word as gospel. Even peer-reviewed articles can have controversial and even outright incorrect information in them. However there's a certain persistence of recognition that puts a rare few folks in a speciai class. Lt. Col Grossman is one of them.

Even when Grossman speculates and makes controversial statements, he will play devil's advocate to his own work. Not all of his newer theories have had time to age properly, but he certainly finds plenty of information to support his ideas. Ideas based on epidemiologic data that cannot be substantiated with RCTs are difficult to substantiate. Grossman does about as good a job as anyone I've seen using the art of scientific inquiry in this field.

I really like the guy. He absolutely has no peers. One day I hope to meet him, or engage him on the fora.

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
 
Posts: 17308
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Postby Guest » Sat May 22, 2004 3:15 pm

What exactly needs to be rectified Bill? What is the situation, and how do you think it needs fixing?


Specifically, what does this mean, Bill?


What exactly reflects badly on us all?


What is this “situation” that needs rectifying


And why would I want to delete your post
Still a lot of unanswered questions.

[/quote]No matter... Andrew supplied the additional information needed to clarify what I attempted to communicate.[/quote]No I don’t think Andrew cleared up anything that you posted; I believe these questions remain without answer. If you are having problems with communication why not utilize some listening skills and respond to the questions. Yes we are having difficulty understanding what you are trying to communicate and we have asked for clarification.

I still don’t see what reflects badly on us all,
having an opinion?


On to the posts... Opinions are fine.
okay were getting some where. Opinions are okay….so once again what is it that reflects badly on us all?

However if you look closer at the individual discussed, he's more than some average bloke writing a book……
………………………………………………………………………………………
…..I really like the guy….. He absolutely has no peers.
having no peers does make peer review difficuilt does it not? :wink: Are you suggesting that Lt Col Grossman is such a leader in his field that his work should not be questioned?Are you suggesting he is above review as he is in a special class? I admire the man's work and look forward to his next book…but I still don’t by everything that was contained in his book On killing.
The first post here borders on the inaccurate
Bill could you point out the inaccuracies? Are you referring to spelling? Are you disputing the amount of blood in Kill Bill? Are you disputing that Tony experienced outrage over posting on decapitation? Are you claiming I have presented my opinions on Grossmans work inaccurately? Are you claiming that I’m wrong the book has undergone peer review?

WHAT IS THE SITUATION?
WHAT NEEDS RECTIFYING?
WHAT WAS INACCURATE IN MY FIRST POST?
WHAT REFLECTS BADLY ON ALL OF US?
WHY WOULD WE WANT TO DELETE YOUR POST?

Bill would you provide some clarification on your posting?
Guest
 

Next

Return to Van Canna's Self Defense Realities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests