Aftermath of a choice

[LenTesta]

You are doing a great job on the VSD Forum Lee.

I never have to get involved and edit anything over there.

Keep those threads coming. I may not get to write as much as I had in the past however I read everything when I can get chance.

[IJ]

Part 1:

As people can see I've generally been away from the forums for a while. Imagine my surprise when I came back and couldn't even use the username "IAN" as I had. Go figure. IJ it is.

These periodic disappearances are just cyclic fluctuations in what I surf to on the web and what I'm up in life. This surf back was fostered by the conclusion of a rotation in the medical ICU. Interesting experience... I'm supervising two novice interns and with them, admitting the sickest people that come to the hospital. There's a new system where an attending supervises us 24-7... sort of. Some of the overnight people sleep most of the time, some get involved. But either way they're not there when some of the most acute stuff happens.

Like we're participating in this mock crisis with a resuscitation dummy (they sprung this on me, actually called me to the room saying someone's heart had stopped in there and had me run the situation) and we come out, and while we weren't looking, someone *IS* dying in the next room. Someone who's 24. Previously healthy. Make some decisions, you've got about 1-2 minutes before this person is irretrievably dead. Now that gets you thinking even at 3 am, huh?

There are some people alive and many of them home with their families right now who wouldn't otherwise had lived if we and in many cases I hadn't done the right thing. Some who got worse or died and we may never know whether that's how it was going to be no matter what, or whether we were giving too little of the wrong stuff, or too late. Next tuesday I'll be presenting one of these to the entire medicine department and taking the heat for what they feel we didn't quite get up to snuff.

And here we've got a fight over gun rights which is a very serious matter but one these forums are never going to change. A few opinions shift (or not, sometimes) and I know *I've* become a fairly consistent supporter of our ability to defend ourselves with weapons if need be or if we want to, in large part because I've found arguments from Van and Panther and Rich persuasive.

But I can't in all honestly pronounce someone dead, tell the family members, witness the moment in which their lives changed and marital status goes from married to widowed with my few words, and then come here and get in a tizzy one way or another about this stuff.

Take a few deep breaths, count to sanchin, do a sanchin, spend an extra second in the posture before closed gate. A few years ago I learned at the asian art museum in San Fran when I did some digging about the postures displayed in all the buddist art that this means "don't be afraid (lower hand), I'm giving you a gift (upper hand)." Finish in closed gate posture, hand over fist--the fire BUT NOT without the control. The glare still on, the kind you have in the fight, taking in everything, reacting to only the big stuff. Body shielded by the right amount of tension, able to shrug off the mild to moderate blows and carry on oblivious.

Someone email this to me the next time *I* have a seizure on the forums.

[IJ]

Part 2:

So what's off limits in these disputes anyways?

A lot of stuff, according to various sources. And predictably if you write something that isn't a Barney lovefest, especially if you take on the way things are usually done in Rome, you're going to get a polite or less polite forum reaming. Want the JAMA reference? Ain't aware of it, but just surf around the various threads here, if you want to see it in action.

A lot of times there's a big fuss about a certain issue and both sides feel there's disrespect meant and frequently the disrespect felt is in posts directing the other side to be more respectful.

A case in point which I am not taking sides in, and only speculating about, for the sake of making a point about disputes in general:

Van seems to feel that deliberate disrespect was intended about the way women's issues are handled in his forum: "be careful in charging my forum with “disrespecting women”!" This in response to a presumably similar feeling that women were being disrespected. What is the source of this dispute? I only speculate:

--Van comes from a background where the way women's issues are discussed on his forum demonstrates respect and appreciation for women and he's completely sincere about this and completely right
--AND others' backgrounds dictate that the way these same issues come up, there's an indication of disrespect for women or outright sexism and their impression of the situation is just as valid

Who's right? BOTH! Hey, opinions vary, and I've known individual people who think the stuff that comes up at times indicates the most sincere appreciation of women and people who think it's just sexist at times. At this moment, I'm the fly on the wall observing the interesting interaction between two camps in many different philosophical issues, this being only the simplest and easiest to illustrate, although I stress to reiterate I don't think it's a big deal and I *really* don't care about it right now!

The thing is that the nature of public forums almost guarantees that:

--we're going to have our opinions challenged at times and given how sincerely we hold them and how true we find them, it's going to seem an outlandish, deliberately inflammatory attack justifying and indignant response
--we're going to get p-o'd because the other side is not only WRONG, they're being RUDE about it. Or so it seems.
--and we're going to have to put up with it and get over any idea that our beliefs aren't going to be challenged in public because people can have any ideas they want and post 'em if they're not totally out of line. That's what makes the forums work, that's what makes them interesting. If we could only post one set of beliefs, we wouldn't learn anything.
--ideally, we're going to have to realize the other person isn't (usually) trying to be a jerk but honestly believes passionately in their view of things.

Let me be the FIRST to say *I* get overly involved and upset and inflammatory over these kinds of quasi important disputes ALL THE TIME! GUILTY as charged. Mea culpa! I know! I'm just trying to work on it. Am I trying to take sides in this particular clash of viewpoints or lecture the various sides or throw kindling on any smoldering flames? Really, no! I'm really not any better with it.

But post whatever you feel like about this post. Go ahead! I'm eager to see what people think, even if they're ticked off, that's what I love about the forums, people write what they feel. I might learn something to boot. Do I expect to get ticked off?

Not today, and go check out part 1 again! I recently learned someone close to me got sexually abused as a child. One of the people I saw in the office recently and sent home ended up in the ICU later that night--wasn't my fault, and I didn't manage anything wrong, but do I ever feel like stink about that anyway! And my STILL sick as stink patient's going to be presented by me on tuesday, and I don't feel to good about the outcome. I think I won't get to see important people over the holidays, but hell, I saw three people with AIDS a few days ago! Sounds like a deal to me.

[Panther]

Ya know...

Dr. Ian... I gotta tell you... those posts really cut to the chase...

Very good.

As you point out, we all need to keep things in our lives in perspective...

Priorities, priorities...

Oh... and try to get some rest over the holidays.



(Is this the point where we start flaming each other? Or the point where we hold hands and sing kumbayah? )

Take care and be good to yourself...

[david]

But I can't in all honestly pronounce someone dead, tell the family members, witness the moment in which their lives changed and marital status goes from married to widowed with my few words, and then come here and get in a tizzy one way or another about this stuff.

Ian,

Very good. In truly dealing with others, we are sometimes able to step outside of ourselves and see issues in ways that we normally would not within the constructs of our mind/experiences . We come back within and realize sometimes that what we considered important really is not, something that seemed so clear is not, and that there are true suffering and pain out there and that we need not contribute to that needlessly.

You brought up the buddhist artifact in San Fran. In your copious spare time (not), try reading the Tibetian Book of The Dead. It really is the book about living. Cut to the chase, it is about how we construct the demons and hells within our own minds (and emotions). See that and they lose their power.

david

[RACastanet]

Nice post Ian. Good to see you back on the forums.

Regards, Rich

[Kunoichi]

[quote] Panther writes: So are we now talking about accidents or are we including murders? If were discussing accidents as it appears and as the discussion was about before, I have already shown that firearms accidents account for a small percentage of accidental deaths of children. And that it is hardly an epidemic.

{Section deleted by GEM} Principals are important and not only when the going is easy. I think men should be able to take it as well as dish it out and "mouthy women" do hate to keep our fingers silent, so let these numbers be my swan song and let the reader determine if or if not there is an "epidemic."


Should you wish additional information, contact Jill Ward, CDFs Violence Prevention and Youth Development Coordinator at jward@childrensdefense.org or 662-3503.


Child Gun-Related Deaths

More children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined.

The latest data released in 2001 show that in a single year, 3,365 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States which is one child every two and a half hours, nine children every day, more than 60 children every week. And, every year, four to five times as many children and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries.

3,365 children and teens were killed by gunfire
1,990 were murdered by gunfire
1,078 committed suicide using a firearm
214 died from an accidental shooting
1,934 were White
1,301 were Black
605 were Hispanic
488 were under age 15
153 were under age 10
73 were under age 5

Again: More children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined.

[RACastanet]

Hello Deb. You quoted a source as saying

More children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined.

Further, you listed this statistic

488 were under age 15

.

A quick scan of the American Cancer Society annual estimate for cancer deaths in this age group (0-14) in 2002 is 1400, almost three times the 488 noted. I have not as yet tallied the totals for all of the above mentioned diseases, or added in 1he 15-19 group, but I believe that we will find the above statement to be untrue. I do not debate the stats on actual deaths due to gunfire, just the comparison. Also, many of these 'children and teens' are gang bangers involved in adult crime and not 'children' as I would define my famiy's offspring.

In any event, statistics are used selectively by the anti-gun crowd, knowing that most people, and especialy the liberal media, will take them as gospel.

Lets look at this another way since I have the ACS stats handy... Based on the total cancer deaths in the US each year, and the high survival rate if detected early, the money spent on gun bashing could save 90,000 lives annually (based on a 90% survivability of the estimated 100,000 cases) from colon cancer alone if used to educate people about the need for fecal occult tests. I'm getting checked this Thursday!

Thanks for the inspiration.
Rich

[Gene DeMambro]

I have generally stayed away from this discussion, mostly b/c I don't know much about the subject at hand to comment, but somethng troubles me...

I have been told if I continue to post I may risk being "black balled" by my Uechi brethren. That it may effect any future advancement in rank.

A dedicated Uechi-Ryu student will be 'black-balled' if (s)he continues to post in an open forum where participation is encouraged?

Not only will (s)he be shunned, but (s)he will never be promoted again, even if (s)he meets all other qualifications?

Is this an official IUKF position?

Is this an official postion in any Uechi-Ryu organization?

Is IUKF is going to let someone's pro-gun control position determine rank advancement? I must have missed that part in the charter. Would the person who warned Ms. Downing please point that part out to the rest of us, lest someone else falls into the same trap?

Even if Ms. Downning did break forum rules, where in the IUKF Charter does it state that such violations effect rank promotion? What rules did she break, anyhow?

If the applicable Uechi-Ryu organization is going to let someone's pro-gun control position determine rank advancement, then something is wrong. Would the person who warned Ms. Downing please point that part out in their governing documents to the rest of us, lest someone else falls into the same trap?

To GEM-Sensei:

Could you please, in your capacity as IUKF president, determine the truth to Ms. Downings allegations and launch an investigation? Was the warning given by an IUKF Senior? If not, then very well. Is it true that continued posting, in the veracity that she has used, could threaten Deb's advancement in rank? Does the same warning hold for the rest of us, who post sometimes in like fashion?

Sincerely,
Gene

[gmattson]

I've deleted the offensive section on your last post. Please stick to issues and not personalities or references to individuals.
Thank you.

[Tony-San]

Is she serious or just talking smack?

Banned from the forums is one thing, but having an unpopular opinion and it affecting your position in an organisation is quite another. Somehow I think that "Deb" is full of poopie.

[Panther]

This discussion/debate is too tiring and time consuming, but I guess it is left to me to take a closer look at the specious claims... yet again.

I queried and stated: So are we now talking about accidents or are we including murders? If were discussing accidents as it appears and as the discussion was about before, I have already shown that firearms accidents account for a small percentage of accidental deaths of children. And that it is hardly an epidemic.

I think men should be able to take it as well as dish it out and "mouthy women" do hate to keep our fingers silent, so let these numbers be my swan song and let the reader determine if or if not there is an "epidemic."

Should you wish additional information, contact Jill Ward, CDFs Violence Prevention and Youth Development Coordinator at jward@childrensdefense.org or 662-3503.

First, let me point out that in order to determine if it is an "epidemic", the readers should know that originally we were discussing accidental deaths of children by firearms whereas now, you are including all deaths of children and teens by firearms. The reader should also know that the CDF is affiliated with "the Brady Center to Prevent handgun Violence" formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc. Hardly an unbiased resource... Even still, let's look at the numbers.

Child Gun-Related Deaths

More children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined.

In order for the reader to make a valid comparison, the numbers for cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS would also need to be included. Otherwise this assertion isn't proven and is obviously meant to cause those who don't do their own research (as Rich Castanet Sensei has) to become alarmed.

The latest data released in 2001 show that in a single year, 3,365 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States which is one child every two and a half hours, nine children every day, more than 60 children every week. And, every year, four to five times as many children and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries.

Interesting, given that the NIH, CDC, & DOJ have only released data through 2000 and some preliminary data through 2001... Regardless, now you aren't talking about just accidents as before... and you aren't talking about just children as before... you've added in murders and suicides as well as including "teenagers" who are 16-19 years old. Let's look closer...

3,365 children and teens were killed by gunfire
1,990 were murdered by gunfire
1,078 committed suicide using a firearm
214 died from an accidental shooting
1,934 were White
1,301 were Black
605 were Hispanic
488 were under age 15
153 were under age 10
73 were under age 5

In these numbers we see a total of 714 deaths by firearms (of all types) of children (ages 0-14) according to these numbers. That means that about 80% of the deaths cited (over 2600) come from the 15-19 year olds! This number includes gang-bangers who have died in turf-wars... and while I don't know whether they did in these numbers, in the past they have been admonished for also including U.S. military personnel (aged 18-19) who died in service to their country!

In these numbers we see only 214 accidental deaths. Even if we put all of those in the category of "children" (ages 0-14), that means that 500 children were either murdered or commited suicide. Looking at the overall numbers, we see that nearly 60% were murders and about 32% were suicides. Using the 2/3 vs 1/3 approximate ratio (given that we've already removed the accidental shootings), that means that over 300 of these child deaths are murders. In actuality, the number of suicides for children is fairly low... dropping to zero in the under 5 year old group. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the majority of these deaths are murders. While tragic, a child who is murdered is dead regardless of the method. And the fact is that the vast majority of murders of children (ages 0-14) do not involve firearms, they involve "blunt trauma"... in other words, most murdered children are beaten to death. And for this quick analysis, I applied all of the attributed accidental deaths to this younger age group, when it is probably safe to assume that the accidental deaths can be distributed into the 15-19 year-old "teenager" group.

Also, let's just add up the numbers for a second... 1990 murdered, 1078 suicides, 214 accidents... I wonder about the last 83. Are those the ones that died in military service? You see, those aren't classified as "murders" and certainly weren't "suicides" and they aren't under the "accidental" heading... Hmmmmm... And while we ponder that, let us also consider which heading justifiable homicide was placed under. That would include citizens or police who have had to shoot someone in defense of self or other innocents... it would also include those women who have shot and killed the "teenaged" home intruder/rapist. We know that there have been more than 83 justifiable homicides and those can't be classified as either suicides or accidents. They must be included under "murders", but is that really an intellectually honest thing to do? Only if you're trying to mislead with statistics... You see, the national statistics have a category for "legal intervention"... I wonder why that wouldn't be separated out.

Again: More children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined.

Cancer: The data for 2000 lists 2,254 deaths from cancer for ages 0-19... the ages you are referring to under the heading of "children and teenagers". More people than were either murdered or took their own lives with firearms in those age groups. The contrast is even more startling when we remove the 15-19 year olds. Over 1500 children (ages 0-14) died from "malignant neoplasms" (cancer) compared to the 714 from firearms. It should be noted that there are an additional 152 deaths from other "neoplasms" (non-malignant forms of cancer) in children (age 0-14).
(Thank you for the reminder, I had to make my annual donation to the National Cancer Society.)

Pneumonia & Influenza: The data for 2000 shows 225 deaths from this source for 0-19 year olds.

Asthma: The data for 2000 doesn't actually breakout asthma into it's own group, but puts it into the group of "chronic lower resperatory disease" and shows 275 deaths from this source for 0-19 year olds.

HIV/AIDS: Comparison of deaths to deaths isn't the whole story here. For example, development of AIDS from the time of HIV infection takes an average of 10 years to occur. With drug research, the life expectancy of someone with HIV/AIDS has increased significantly, however it is still a terminal disease. Fundamentally, this means that those who contract HIV as children and teenagers rarely die from the disease while still children or teenagers. However, the CDC statistics show that there are 4,219 cases of HIV/AIDS in those 13-19. The actual mortality rate from HIV/AIDS in the 0-19 age group is very low.

Therefore, while the actual statement that more "children and teens died from gunfire than from [the other sources] combined" is irrefutable true, even though the numbers are very close. If we compare children (age 0-14), we see the statistics give an entirely different conclusion. ( 714 from gunfire compared to 1900+ from the other causes... without HIV/AIDS which is statistically insignificant in the 0-19 age group.)

And while the comparison is made with firearms deaths, it should also be pointed out that there were 727 murders of children (age 0-14) in 2000 {by all methods and guns weren't at the top of the list by quite a bit}, 300 suicides by children (age 0-14, but all occured in the 10-14 age group) in 2000 {by all methods with pills, carbon monoxide and jumping from structures leading the way}... By including the "teenagers", the murder rate {by all methods} jumps to 2,641 (FYI, this figure does not include justifiable homicide or death while in military service ), and 1,921 suicides (age 0-19).

Last I checked, murder is a crime regardless of the method employeed and studies have shown that those intent on taking their own lives will do so regardless of the availability of firearms (Japan is a prime example where firearms are virtually banned and the per capita suicide rate is over double that of the United States).

I refuse to get into the demographic breakdowns based on ethnicity. If people think this has been a heated debate, I shutter to think how things would rapidly deteriorate.

{Warning: personal opinion!} Rather than going on a "gun-bashing" tirade, it would seem to me that those concerned with the safety and well-being of children would stop blaming inanimate objects and start looking for ways to stop the crime, violence and depression that claims these young lives... any other course looks to be disingenuous at best. I won't respond to other claims that I find lacking in credibility... I guess I just have a different idea of "principles" and ethics.

[jorvik]

great post, Panther .........I must say that I admire Deb to for making the argument.....saying comes to mind.
There are lies.........dam lies.........and statistics

[Steve]

What happened on Van's forum and to an extent here was not a debate. A debate is a formal process that follows a structured format. It is also a competition and must be viewed in that manner.

We have witnessed something called symmetrical escalation (escalating symmetry) in communications theory. According to The Pragmatics of Human Communication by Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson, "This tendency (competitiveness in interpersonal relationships) accounts for the typical escalating quality of symmetrical interaction once its stability is lost and a so-called runaway occurs.."(p. 107).

Disclaimers: 1) I believe in the right of U.S. citizens to lawfully own handguns, rifles, shotguns or any other weapons they believed covered by the Second Amendment, however I do not own any of the above. 2) I believe in Free Speech and the rights covered by the First Amendment, therefore I do not have an issue with Bill opening a new thread on his forum to deal with issues discussed on another moderator's forum.

Having said that, I do not know the extent of formal training that Bill has received regarding debate. To accept his opinions and/or criticisms of the discussion on gun control, I have to "give" him some level of interpersonal power. From a communications standpoint, power is classified as expert power, legitimate power, referent power, etc. The question thus becomes, although he is highly educated and very intelligent, does he merit my award of some sort of power to be regarded as an authority on debate and debate strategies? The answer to this question forms the basis for a response to his criticisms. <On a personal note, I'm so intimidated by what I perceive to be his intellectual superiority that I babble incoherently whenever I'm in his presence - in essence giving him the power to control the interaction.>

One of my two masters degrees is in communications and I was a forensics coach at BGSU in the mid-1980's (debate tactic - attempting to illustrate expert power to influence the persuasive impact of my opinion). To help future "debates" on these pages, perhaps we should begin by defining the debate format and terms used. Below is a brief overview of the formal debate process:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The method for formal debate presented here was designed by psychology professors Joseph Rubinstein and Brent Slife for Purdue University.

Formal Debate:
The procedure in debate begins with a proposed solution to a problem. A series of carefully timed, formal, spoken arguments are then alternated between an affirmative speaker and a negative speaker. If some members of the class have had experience with formal debating, you might do well to have them assume some responsibility for procedural management and timing.

Propositions:
The proposition is the statement being debated. It is stated affirmatively and conclusively, much in the manner of a scientific hypothesis. A debatable proposition is considered to be one of three types: fact, value, or policy. An effective debater can spot the type of proposition he or she must work with and determine what its specific demands are.

FACT. Propositions of fact state that a phenomenon is true or false--for example, "Several modern religious cults use brainwashing techniques to convert young people." (In this case, it might be useful to delimit the proposition by naming a specific religious group.) Fact propositions demand that the proponent:1. Assert some externally established criteria of definition, rule, or law generally agreed upon as the basis of fact--"The techniques of brainwashing consist of...." 2. Demonstrate that the phenomenon in question is consistent with the criteria--"X and Y religious groups use the following brainwashing techniques to convert young people."

VALUE. Propositions of value state that a phenomenon is consistent with criteria for evaluating its acceptability--for example, "Psychology can best improve the human condition by directing its efforts toward controlling human behavior." Value propositions demand that the proponent: 1. Convince the audience that the proponent's own criteria of personal values are acceptable--"The human condition will be improved when everyone is happy and productive." 2. Convince the audience that acceptable criteria of value are fulfilled by the phenomenon in question--"Psychology now has within its grasp the means to make everyone happy and productive."

POLICY. Propositions of policy call for some form of action. In general, they may contain some elements of both fact and value. They are often recognizable by use of the word should and must speculate about the consequences of the action--for example, "As a national policy we should eliminate all forms of violence from television programming." Policy propositions demand that the proponent convince the audience that the opposed action will be beneficial--"When violence on TV is eliminated, violence in our streets will diminish."

Note that although most of the issues contained in Taking Sides lend themselves to one or another type of proposition, some may be treated as you choose. One issue may ask, for example, "Should Animals Be Used in Psychological Research?" Possible propositions may be as follows: Fact: "Experiments using animals are essential to the development of many life-saving medical procedures." Value: "Animal experimentation benefits both humans and animals." Policy: "Experimental treatments should always be tested on animals before they are tested on humans."

Argument. The argument consists of using both facts and opinions as evidence in the logical analysis of a proposition to enable judges to arrive at a decision. It is essential that all team members be thoroughly familiar with the opposing side's argument. They must be able to select those arguments that are pertinent to the proposition and reject those that are irrelevant in providing rebuttal to the opposing team's evidence. An excellent preparation would be for students to make a list of points of agreement and disagreement for the two teams. Points of disagreement should be stated so that the affirmative side can unambiguously say "yes" to it and the negative side can clearly say "no."

Debate Format. There are generally two types of format: the traditional and the cross-examination. Each format may have two or three members for each side. At the introductory level, we recommend that you stay with the traditional format, since the cross-examination format requires more debating skill, is more complicated, and takes longer. In the traditional format, each constructive speech is usually given eight minutes and each rebuttal speech is usually given four minutes.

TRADITIONAL FORMAT
Constructive speeches:
1. First affirmative
2. First negative
3. Second affirmative
4. Second negative

Rebuttal speeches:
1. First negative
2. First affirmative
3. Second negative
4. Second affirmative

The vote - determining by majority consensus who provided the most compelling argument (e.g., who won the debate).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions of debate concepts and terms, including the "straw person" argument can be found here:

http://forensics.academic.claremontmcke ... ossary.htm

One of the top academic debate websites is hosted at the University of Vermont:

http://debate.uvm.edu/

Pros and cons for the gun control debate may be found here:

http://www.youdebate.com/gun_control.htm


A related question centers around why we come to these forums and what we get out of our interactions here. To know others' motives for participating on these pages is beyond our capability. For me, the forums offer a sense of community and a light reprieve from the "daily grind." My interactions on these forums are usually brief, spontaneous and without too much substance. Why? Because it is an active choice that I make - my job is intellectually stimulating and requires a lot of mental activity. Call me an "escapist" if you wish.

Is it bad to offer/interject personal experience and beliefs to the comments of others in an active thread? If it is, why even communicate, for our personal experiences are all we have - they form the frame of reference through which the outside world is interpreted. All we have to bring to the forums is our personal experience.

Let us not forget, however, that each forum is the moderator's "house" and that s/he sets the rules for the house, determines whether or not the behavior of the guests is acceptable and that the moderator's house is not a democracy. There are "universal" rules that have been established by the website's owner (GEM) that include no personal attacks, insults, etc. Why? Because they serve no constructive purpose and they lead to symmetrical escalation.

So why did I choose to respond to this thread and why is my opinion of any value? The answer is that I care about Uechi-ryu.com, my instructor (GEM), the forums and all who frequent the site. There's no sense of community in a hostile environment. As for my opinion, well, you know what they say about opinions.........

[gmattson]

I don't know about everyone else, but I sure learn a lot by visiting these forums!