# traditional/Neo



## ninhito (Oct 2, 2004)

Hey how come everyone is all caught up on what is what and whose is better (no offense). There are two fundamental ways that you would want to learn ninjutsu: you either want to become a ninja like in the old days of Japan (the weird thing is im black) or you want to learn it for self defense. Most people want do it to learn how to defend themself which is alright. now if Traditional was translated and taught by the japanese in the mountains an in that terrain then there training, if taught the exact same way all the way in to the present, would be extremely piontless and hard to adapt unless he lived on the concrete. Then there is the modern, which is weird because ninjutsu is not new, but what ever, then they have incorporated the rule of concrete, so if there aint no trees around then what you gonna do, which is the stuff of today then there "version" of ninjutsu would be more "concrete" happy, ya know. If you jump off a 11 or twelve foot branch into the street or on hard ground ya'll know what i mean.  Let me know what you think okay.  No arguements singling people out pleeease.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 2, 2004)

Ninhito,
With all due respect, I do not think you know enough of the situation to comment on it with any degree of credibility.

Traditional ninjutsu is not something taught to fight in the old style. For the purposes of Martialtalk.com it merely means that it is an art that comes from Japan. No one really is interested in saying that either modern or traditional is better than the other. Masaaki Hatsumi has a book out on using a knife and pistol for combat. That hardly fits with the way you described a traditional way of training.

The problem began when there were people who started their own modern version of ninjutsu that was not in line with what is done in Japan. The way they move, strategies for combat, etc, were different from the three originizations that are found in Japan. Does that mean they are better, worse? Not in the least. But it did make conversations difficult since the terms, etc, that one group used were not the same as the other.

Perhaps if you sat back and read some of the many, many threads that have been going on you will come to understand the subject matter better. I do not know your age or your background, but you strike me as rather young and inexperienced. If you care to learn about ninjutsu and discuss the subject, maybe you might want to join a dojo and see what it is like first hand. The art is not for everyone, but I enjoy it. Perhaps you would too. You do seem to have an interest in it based on your posts here. But, based on what you write here, you do not seem to have all that much experience in the subject.


----------



## AnimEdge (Oct 2, 2004)

ninhito said:
			
		

> If you jump off a 11 or twelve foot branch into the street or on hard ground ya'll know what i mean.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Enson (Oct 3, 2004)

ninhito said:
			
		

> No arguements singling people out pleeease.


i don't think your post calls for any arguements or the likes... i do want to encourage you, like don, to look up past threads.

no one has said which is better or worse. it is a matter of preference and self study. if you find modern more suited to your personality and personal philosophies of combat then you should go that route... and vice versa.

i would also encourage you to sit in on both schools if you can or visit their websites to get a better view point of what i'm talking about.

peace


----------



## Enson (Oct 3, 2004)

artyon: :mp5: :idunno: 

double post. server problems :uhyeah:


----------



## ninhito (Oct 3, 2004)

Thanks i should do that.  Hmmm I wonder why it seems like there is such a fissure between the modern and traditional. it doesnt seem wrong except the Tew thing where he didnt agree with the way Hatsumi trained or something like that (read a post that said something to that degree).  I guess that is why he made his own "style" of ninjutsu.  Hmmm i want to learn, what are the diferences in strategies?  What are the differences in the three X-Kan?  I looked at the ninja faq and it didnt really tell me the differences.  Hmm and with that i shutup.


----------



## Kreth (Oct 4, 2004)

ninhito said:
			
		

> Hmmm i want to learn, what are the diferences in strategies?  What are the differences in the three X-Kan?  I looked at the ninja faq and it didnt really tell me the differences.  Hmm and with that i shutup.


Nihito,
Give the search feature a try. All of these questions have been discussed many times over.

Jeff


----------



## AnimEdge (Oct 4, 2004)

I think the only bad thing about Modern is that when the Traditional guys start speaking about tech.s  by tehre japanese names, that i have no idea what there talking about, even if i know the tech if i saw it


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2004)

AnimEdge said:
			
		

> I think the only bad thing about Modern is that when the Traditional guys start speaking about tech.s by tehre japanese names, that i have no idea what there talking about, even if i know the tech if i saw it


Well... yeah.  But we dont call our techniques "Stepping back raising foot downblock strike."  We call that "Hicho"

Class would take forever if we didn't.


----------



## Enson (Oct 4, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> We call that "Hicho"


bless you! did you sneeze? :rofl:

i know what you are saying, but i also know what anime is saying. i'm in the same boat. alot of the japanese terms have been taken out of our art. simplifies things for me. i guess i'm not as smart as others here.

peace


----------



## ninhito (Oct 4, 2004)

i did that already.  I looked at the ninja faq and that was very vague.  Hmmm... MAN THERE ALOT OF THREADS HERE!!!!  YOU EXPECT ME TO READ ALL THIS JUST TO FIND MY INFORMATION OMGOSH!!!!!  I feel like im reading a book.  Only this book makes no sense except its all about ninjutsu.


----------



## Enson (Oct 4, 2004)

unfortunaley the differences were discussed through out many different threads. so to find one that discusses the differences will be hard to find. look up some of the threads on 'hayes' to get an idea.peace


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2004)

Enson said:
			
		

> bless you! did you sneeze? :rofl:
> 
> i know what you are saying, but i also know what anime is saying. i'm in the same boat. alot of the japanese terms have been taken out of our art. simplifies things for me. i guess i'm not as smart as others here.
> 
> peace


Honestly tho...

How much clarification would you get if I said "Start in Hicho" or If I said start in "Flying Bird".  I used the english term, but I bet it still made no sense...


----------



## AaronLucia (Oct 4, 2004)

Well, if youv'e ever seen Karate Kid you might know what 'Flying Bird' is.


----------



## KyleShort (Oct 4, 2004)

Funny thing for me is that it has been years since I studied ninjitsu, where I only achieved 5th kyu, but I can still roll terms for techniques, kamae etc.  In fact it is hard for me at times to look at techniques in other arts and not think, ganseki, take ori, ichimonji no kame   Hmm, come to think of it, I can still perform most it...granted my ukemi isn't what it used to be =)

Actually, I find learning the "foreign" terminology easier because it stands out in my mind.  Of course translations like "Breaking Bamboo" are sure easy to remember when you think about the gruesome nature of some of the techniques!


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 4, 2004)

Not to mention that when Hatsumi says "Hicho" everyone (in the Bujinkan) knows what he is talking about, but the term "flyig bird" would only go over with the English speakers.

And there are concepts such as kuzushi that I do not see in many "neo" arts. The way an art looks at combat can change little things that may not be noticed by the typical person, but are there. They may seem to be small differences, but they are very important. I am talking about things like how many arts hit and snap back, but the Bujinkan hits slower and does not retract as often. It seems small, but when you factor in kuzushi it makes more sense. If you try to do one way of striking without taking the whole art and it's approach towards combat, you end up with something like Frankenstien's monster.


----------



## ninhito (Oct 4, 2004)

YAAAY my thread that i made is going on to good start.  KEEP IT THAT WAY!!!  Please.


----------



## ninhito (Oct 4, 2004)

O yeah and with the search it doesnt show me stuff that isnt covered here maybe it was covered in the past (like waaaaay before i found this place).


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2004)

AaronLucia said:
			
		

> Well, if youv'e ever seen Karate Kid you might know what 'Flying Bird' is.


Ah... Daniel-san...

How you say... WRONG TECHNIQUE.


----------



## Bester (Oct 4, 2004)

Ninhito, why don't you just ask us all your questions, and we will be more than happy to do all the searching for you.  We're out of Silver Platters however, so you'll have to take paper.

 The question "What is  "Traditional Ninjutsu"?" was answered in that thread.

 The question "What are the differences?" was answered in the Ninja Forum FAQ. 
 A more indepth answer as to what each of the Kans cover and their histories is easily found by visiting their websites, linked to inside the FAQ.

 What is "Modern" is currently being defined by those who currently study those systems. The 2 branches here include:
 - The "In Name Onlys" such as Kim, Dux and Tew.
 - The "I studied in a Kan, but added my own twists to it" such as Hayes.

 Ninjutsu, and all legit arts have nothing to do with anime, sci-fi, comic books or what you see in the movies.  Ninjas do not walk through walls, have super powers, or do "hang time" ala the Matrix.  To believe otherwise is to prove ones own stupidity.

 This forum has numerous people currently "walking the walk".  They are more than willing to advise, but will not waste their time on those too lazy to do some reading on their own.


----------



## ninhito (Oct 4, 2004)

But the FAQ said nuthin about the difference in technique or anything.  It just said who the current soketachi or is it "ra" were.  I ask those questions because im trying to pick which one i want to study.  It doesn't seem to be any addition to technique or is anyone saying anything about that, but of course, noone asks.  It seems that you guys are sick of my questions.  Thats all I've got are questions.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 4, 2004)

You can hit any bookstore and find some books by both Hatsumi and Hayes.

The Ashida Kim stuff is pretty much regarded as junk and bunk by those who have studied the arts.

From what I've seen on video of both Hayes and Hatsumi, they know their stuff.
Some folks don't care for Hayes 'Quest' stuff claiming it's watered down. 

The only way you're going to get the indepth info is to actually walk into the school and watch a few classes.  Call first and ask if you can.  If they say no, then I'd call somewhere else.  

Check our "Newbies" FAQ in the Library for more info on 'New student' stuff.

When dealing with the different arts, you will often find the same or very similar technique called by a bazillion different terms and names. 
"Trapping hands", "Hubad", "Block-Check-Counter", Etc. all refer to the same basic drill. Just 3 different arts. I've no clue what it is in Japanese, but I can do it in my sleep. 

Bester basically did answer your question.  Unless one studies all the varients, the only way to find out is to check the roots.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2004)

ninhito said:
			
		

> But the FAQ said nuthin about the difference in technique or anything. It just said who the current soketachi or is it "ra" were. I ask those questions because im trying to pick which one i want to study. It doesn't seem to be any addition to technique or is anyone saying anything about that, but of course, noone asks. It seems that you guys are sick of my questions. Thats all I've got are questions.


How about this, Ninhito...

What specifically are you looking for in an art, maybe we can direct you twords the school that will best fit your needs.


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Oct 4, 2004)

*Don Roley: "Not to mention that when Hatsumi says "Hicho" everyone (in the Bujinkan) knows what he is talking about, but the term "flyig bird" would only go over with the English speakers."*

*Technopunk: "*

*Quote:*
*Originally Posted by AaronLucia*
_*'Well, if youv'e ever seen Karate Kid you might know what 'Flying Bird' is. '*_

*Ah... Daniel-san...*

*How you say... WRONG TECHNIQUE."*

Yes, & BTW, Daniel-san learned "Crane Technique" not "Flying Bird." 

Originally didn't want to touch on this - originally intended just to bust Aaron's balls a little, but I wanted to comment on this:

*Don Roley: "And there are concepts such as kuzushi that I do not see in many "neo" arts. ... If you try to do one way of striking without taking the whole art and it's approach towards combat, you end up with something like Frankenstien's monster."*

I've seen an example of this phenomenon. There is a so-called "neo-ninja" style (not going to name any names at the moment so I don't stir up any trouble), of which I saw a demonstration, and while they called their combat system "ninjutsu" or "ninjitsu" or claimed that ninja arts are the basis for their art, what I saw demonstrated looked like nothing more than a mix of taekwondo and aikido, along with a little (questionable-looking) weapons skills.

Just to qualify, I have trained in both taekwondo and aikido, and can recognize when one style or the other is used with an absence of internalization or synthesis of both grappling and striking as found in well-rounded jujutsu styles, e.g. Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.


----------



## sojobow (Oct 5, 2004)

ninhito said:
			
		

> It doesn't seem to be any addition to technique or is anyone saying anything about that, but of course, noone asks. It seems that you guys are sick of my questions. Thats all I've got are questions.


Questions are good. At the minimum, they will initiate discussion. My thought is that in the neo schools, the reference to Ninjitsu or Ninjutsu is in effect, a moniker. Some neo schools may be more of a mixed martial art school that may have less than 25-30% of the curriculum defined as or taken from Ninjitsu. The rest being a montage of other martial arts. They kind of strip another style of what is usefull and throw out the rest. So you'll have a school with Ninjitsu in its name, but in actuality, you'll see Philipine knife fighting, Jujitsu, Kali and some Escrima, kung fu - Po, karate, Ground fighting, Ninjutsu, Special Forces techniques, Guns, Thai Kickboxing, Sulsa and TKD to name of few. They take what they consider usefull and update the techniques etc for today's human development and disgard the rest. You can imagine the problems you might have trying to call all these facets of different arts by the language of the Country of origin. So, they will usually stick to english translations. If Joe Public comes out with a new style, the neo will look at it; see if there is something that will update what already exist and include it in their school. This may be something as simple as a thought. The rest, they discard as the disgard usually will not fit the school's founding philosophy.


----------



## ninhito (Oct 5, 2004)

Wait so they basicly make what they call ninjutsu  bunch of stuff taken from somebody else great just great.  I want the original ninjutsu.  The one where they tested you when you were like 15 in a whole bunch of survival techniques that were extrememly useful in japan.  O and i see why ninjutsu has no MA type fighting events because ninjutsu is a death blow type thing and isnt for a long battle unless the practitioner does something wrong.  Its the little things that count.


----------



## ninhito (Oct 5, 2004)

Okay this is what im lookin for.  A quick-acting-use-what-you-need-to-get-the-job-done that has flow where you can use another punch and/or kick right after that and that fight is history.  Dont need anything really big or flashy just extremely effective.  O has sparring but i could handle that part heh heh heh (in an evil vioce).


----------



## Kreth (Oct 5, 2004)

Nihito, you might want to actually quote the person you're replying to (see the Quote button in each post?). That makes it much easier to follow a conversation.

Jeff


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Oct 5, 2004)

Oh well, I guess I'll try to help out a little.

*ninhito: "But the FAQ said nuthin about the difference in technique or anything. ... I ask those questions because im trying to pick which one i want to study. It doesn't seem to be any addition to technique or is anyone saying anything about that, but of course, noone asks. It seems that you guys are sick of my questions. Thats all I've got are questions."*

I think it would be difficult for a FAQ to compare technical differences between styles. I think they just provide a minimum of information to stimulate further research. For example, one day you hear about ninjutsu, "oh that sounds cool, what's that like?" - so you do some research, "huh, seems there's a couple different schools that teach ninjutsu, what's this one... Bu-jin-kan? Hmm, according to this handy-dandy FAQ, it's an organization headed by one Hatsumi Masaaki, that teaches ninjutsu and a whole lot more. Interesting." - so you use that to do a few internet searches on such things as 'Bujinkan,' 'Hatsumi,' 'Ninjutsu' vs. 'Ninjitsu,' etc.

From there, you'll be able to contact members of whatever organization/school you are researching and ask them about specifics such as what techniques are like, what are the philosophies and training methods, etc.

And don't think that we are sick of your questions because of the way we respond. I think the trouble is that the questions aren't specific enough.

Plus, in the case of discussing technical aspects of ninjutsu, well . . . ninja's are a pretty secretive bunch, and don't like sharing too much specific information like that, so you'll likely hear a lot of vagaries, and misinformation, and other confusing things that will frustrate the snot out of you. I've been studying ninjutsu formally for six years, and through solo research for several years before that, and I still don't know what the heck any of it is about.

*sojobow: "... My thought is that in the neo schools, the reference to Ninjitsu or Ninjutsu is in effect, a moniker. Some neo schools may be more of a mixed martial art school that may have less than 25-30% of the curriculum defined as or taken from Ninjitsu. The rest being a montage of other martial arts...*

*So you'll have a school with Ninjitsu in its name, but in actuality, you'll see Philipine knife fighting, Jujitsu, ... "*

*...You can imagine the problems you might have trying to call all these facets of different arts by the language of the Country of origin. So, they will usually stick to english translations. ...*

*They kind of strip another style of what is usefull and throw out the rest...*

*They take what they consider usefull and update the techniques etc for today's human development and disgard the rest..."*

Ya' know, I think that whole post was the most intelligent thing I've ever seen you say. You hit the nail right on the head, but not very hard. Allow me to hammer it in just a little further:

These "neo-ninja" schools and mixed martial arts styles that call what they do ninjutsu, or many times ninjitsu (which, if using the same convention of romanized Japanese, means something different. And what it means, btw, is pretty ironic), are doing so because they like to consider what they do to be in the "spirit" of ninjutsu, or are emulating/simulating what they believe ninjutsu to be. 

Now, if they are honest and up-front, and explain that reasoning, then most people will kinda let it slide even though it is misleading, and in many cases, fraudulent. I'm one to let it slide for the most part even though it annoys me to some degree. I leave all the fraud-busting stuff to our good friend, Don Roley.

According to your reasoning (the problem of confusion by calling all these different facets of diverse arts by their original culturally-derived names), wouldn't it be less confusing to call a style that is not Japanese in origin by a name other than ninjutsu? If they are already admitting to be a mixed martial arts style and are renaming all the techniques taken from many different arts into English words, then why use the non-English word "ninjutsu?" Wouldn't it be clear and precise to just call it "mixed martial arts?" Then you could even go so far as to say that ninjutsu is one of the many arts borrowed from (as long as that is truly the case - that it was actually ninjutsu and not another neo-ninja style that was studied in-depth before chopping it up into the mixed martial arts salad).

In the case of the Bujinkan, for example. We call our style, "Budou Taijutsu" - which is a very general (and frankly, generic) term. It's sort of like a Japanese way of saying "mixed martial arts." And that's what the Bujinkan style is. It is a mix of at least nine complete martial arts systems. I think we can get away with calling what we do, "ninjutsu" because we do in fact learn real (i.e. authentic/traditional) ninjutsu.

As for other systems 'taking a little of this and a little of that' and throwing out the rest . . . when that happens, I worry that some of what is thrown out or discarded/disregarded (or to use your hybrid word, "disgarded"), is not necessarily useless, but rather not fully understood. Complete martial arts systems work because everything fits together. When you take pieces out and leave behind other pieces, and then try to make them fit with pieces from other styles, well ... there can be cracks, and ill-fitting corners when trying to force circles to fit with squares.

It's like the example I cited earlier of the so-called 'ninjitsu' style that looked to me to be nothing more than taekwondo mixed with aikido. It was glaringly apparent that there were two different shaped things trying to snuggle up close to eachother. There were gaps in the flow as the practicioner had to shift gears to switch between techniques of the different styles.

Again, to make a comparison to the Bujinkan, this problem doesn't really exist, as nothing is really thrown out to mix it all together, and the constituent parts themselves are complete martial arts to begin with that already have a smooth combination of grappling and striking and weapons use.


*ninhito: "Wait so they basicly make what they call ninjutsu bunch of stuff taken from somebody else great just great. I want the original ninjutsu."*

When you know the whole story, it makes it easier to make a decision. I agree with you. I would rather have the original, so that's what I chose. Others prefer neo-hybrid-mixed styles that just happen to be called ninjutsu when they really aren't. That's cool too. To each his own.

*"The one where they tested you when you were like 15 in a whole bunch of survival techniques that were extrememly useful in japan. O and i see why ninjutsu has no MA type fighting events because ninjutsu is a death blow type thing and isnt for a long battle unless the practitioner does something wrong..."*

I don't know about all that, but you're on the right track. The original ninjutsu was for survival, and for carrying out specialized tasks. It was not (and is not) meant for fighting. Like you said, if battle is engaged, that means something went wrong. And it's not just that ninjutsu has deadly and devastating techniques and all sorts of ways to do horrible things to another human being that makes it unsuitable for fighting in a contest, but also the philosophy that ninjutsu is not meant for fighting, but for enduring in times of adversity, for being discreet and often anonymous in one's actions, for allowing events to unfold as they should and to sometimes nudge things along in the right direction from time to time. 

If a fight does break out, the ninja is more likely to run away, but just in case - in the unfortunate event that a ninja failed to live a peaceful life and failed to remain "in the shadows" and physical conflict is unavoidable - then woe be to any who must face the ninja's combat skills.

*ninhito: "Okay this is what im lookin for. A quick-acting-use-what-you-need-to-get-the-job-done that has flow where you can use another punch and/or kick right after that and that fight is history. Dont need anything really big or flashy just extremely effective. O has sparring ..."*

What you described could be nearly any martial art that has practical self-defense as its primary goal. Ninjutsu can be fast-acting, or it can be slow depending on what is necessary. It definitely relies on flow for effectiveness (in and out of fights). It certainly isn't big nor flashy, but rather quite subtle and part of ninjutsu invisibility is that techniques are often felt before they are seen (if seen at all).

Since fighting is not the goal, the occasional fight is over quickly, either because it was avoided, evaded, or the assailant has been incapacitated without any fuss. And, since fighting is not the goal, sparring is rare in ninjutsu practice. It just doesn't teach the principles and conditions of an actual self-defense situation. Granted, it is useful for the occasional testing of techniques under pressure (where one has to respond spontaneously, and adjust techniques to fit the ever-changing chaotic situation); however, sparring simulates a fight - which you should understand by now is not what ninjutsu is about, and is not the same as self-defense. 

In a fight or in sparring, both participants have agreed to fight, and each has the motivation to win. In a real combat/self-defense situation, one person (or more likely several persons, with unknown motivations, and with unknown weapons and tactics) criminally assails on another person who is a victim whose motivation is not to fight, but rather to survive. He may lose the fight (runs away / gets beat up / etc.) but wins because he survived. The attackers may or may not feel like they won or lost depending on their goals.

So you see, while sparring can help in practicing physical skills that may be useful for self-defense, the whole flavor of the encounter and the mindset of the participants just doesn't match up with reality.


I know I've rambled on long enough (I have way too much free time), but I thought of another perspective on traditional/classical/original vs. modern/"neo"/hybrid arts while I was talking about the "chopped-up pieces in a salad" type of MA style.

Consider this: ninjutsu/budo-taijutsu, as taught in the Bujinkan, has been handed down nearly fully intact for centuries and was built upon real battle-tested techniques and has adapted and evolved over the ages according to changes in real combat conditions.

Now take something like a neo-ninja style that is mostly a mix of taekwondo and aikido (to continue with my previous example). First off, the two were created in different countries. Second, they were created within the last hundred years. Both were based on real combat styles from the past, and both originally had self-defense as their primary goal, but each have evolved along different paths. 

Taekwondo practice has been heavily influenced by sport competitions, and aikido was largely created as a means to spiritual development. Now think of all the watering down of combat technique that occured as bujutsu/taijutsu as used by samurai and ninja evolved into jujutsu, and during times of peace, jujutsu was practiced by civilians and out of work samurai as partly self-defense and partly physical and spiritual exercise. 

Adapting to peaceful times, the old arts evolved into stylized sport forms such as karate and judo. Instead of remaining complete systems, they specialized in one area of combat. Jujutsu branched into aikijujutsu and the sport form judo. Aikijujutsu was further watered down and specialized into aikijutsu, and then further into the more spiritual art form of aikido.

So now we have all this watering down, over-specialization, multiple degrees of separation from the source arts, and then the mixing of these styles into hybrids that necessarily includes "throwing out" that which is not understood or seen as useful. Granted, they tend to be very adamant about staying current, and adapting the style to fit the times and places in which it will be used (e.g. American self-defense arts that include a lot of defenses against handgun and knife attacks), but still it is easy to see how holes and deficiencies and inadequacies can develop in such arts.

That is all fine and good, but when you realize that the old arts that make up the Bujinkan (including ninjutsu) have also evolved and adapted to fit modern times, then it just seems a lot simpler to stick with the original, time-tested version than to have faith in a new hybrid style that may or may not be based on the arts that they claim to be, might be making fruadulent claims, and possibly was designed by someone very young with (comparitively) very little experience in all the various martial arts that they are attempting to mix together.

Of course, it all depends on your goals. If you want to win a MMA event like the UFC, e.g. then it would of course be prudent to train in a mixed martial arts style that specializes in UFC-like competition fighting. There is plenty of evidence that ninjutsu practicioners don't do well in those events. In fact, the evidence isn't all that good (not statistically viable), because I don't think more than a couple ninjutsuka ever competed in one of those contests.

Whew, that gets a lot off my chest. Thanks for putting up with my verbose writing style.


----------



## Enson (Oct 5, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Honestly tho...
> 
> How much clarification would you get if I said "Start in Hicho" or If I said start in "Flying Bird". I used the english term, but I bet it still made no sense...


i know what you are saying. the thing that is different for us is we have no set patterns to follow on how to defend ourselves. so to name a technique is like naming a recipe. i.e. this is how you make... tuna salad. you get 1 cup of tuna, 2 tps. of salt... etc. in our style we learn what tuna is and how to use it in everything. we don't have recipes but ingrediants. did that make sense? i guess thats why i don't really get the whole naming the technique thing.

peace


----------



## Kizaru (Oct 5, 2004)

Enson said:
			
		

> we don't have recipes but ingrediants. did that make sense? i guess thats why i don't really get the whole naming the technique thing.


Alot of times those "names" have a relation to the technique. They may detail the rhythm or the intention of the technique- more ingredients for your salad. 

When literacy wasn't at the level it is now, they also served as mnemonic devices. Often, easy to remember names were taken from religion to describe strategies or what not to make them easier to remember when you needed them.



> ."Budou Taijutsu" - which is a very general (and frankly, generic) term. It's sort of like a Japanese way of saying "mixed martial arts."


Or it could mean "Warrior Path Physical Skills"...we can see the "Physical Skills" in there but what's the other side of the coin we don't see? Maybe "Kakutougi" means something like "mixed martial arts" in Japanese...I don't know...


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Oct 6, 2004)

*Enson: "...the thing that is different for us is we have no set patterns to follow on how to defend ourselves. so to name a technique is like naming a recipe. i.e. this is how you make... tuna salad. you get 1 cup of tuna, 2 tps. of salt... etc. in our style we learn what tuna is and how to use it in everything. we don't have recipes but ingrediants. did that make sense? i guess thats why i don't really get the whole naming the technique thing."*

That really isn't a difference. Kata training are not "set patterns to follow on how to defend ourselves." They are recipes, yes, but the meals you can make out of all the different ingredients are just examples on how different movements can be pieced together. It's like if the techniques are words and the principles the rules of grammar, the kata are like favorite short stories that we like to read once in a while for inspiration. Now if we wanted to write a letter to a friend, of course we're not going to just copy one of those stories, we are going to use the words and grammar we know to put sentences together however we want (as long as they make sense and sound intelligent) - reading those stories shows us how to make our words make sense. We give those stories names, so we can remember them easier.

A common occurance in Bujinkan training is except for a handful of basic forms, one will never see the same kata twice. It's similar to if all you learn was techniques and no kata, at some point you are going to do more than one technique at a time - that's a kata. If you do that same pattern again sometime, you just repeated a set form.

*Kizaru: "Alot of times those "names" have a relation to the technique. They may detail the rhythm or the intention of the technique- more ingredients for your salad. .."*

Yes, there are many named forms like that. For example, "ate nage" = hit and throw, and that's just what you do, you hit, then you throw. Or "kasumi dori" = fog capture (but kasumi is also a code word for vital point strike to the temple), and the kata starts with a strike to the temple, and then a capturing movement.

*"Or it could mean 'Warrior Path Physical Skills'"*

"Or it could mean?" That's what it literally means, but still you have to agree it's a very broad and general term, but then we practice a very broad and general range of martial arts.

*"...we can see the "Physical Skills" in there but what's the other side of the coin we don't see?"*

The other side of the coin is the "Warrior Path."

When I see "budo taijutsu" I don't see "budo-taijutsu," where budo is used as an adjective to describe the taijutsu. I see "budo & taijutsu." One is a path; a way of life (remember it used to be called "ninpo taijutsu?" At that time, I did consider ninpo to be an adjective to describe the taijutsu, since everything had a ninja flavor to it), the other is an art made up of technical skills. We put both together for a complete system.

Just my opinions, of course.


----------



## sojobow (Oct 6, 2004)

ninhito said:
			
		

> Wait so they basicly make what they call ninjutsu bunch of stuff taken from somebody else great just great. *I want the original ninjutsu.*


Are not all martial arts practiced today a "bunch of stuff taken from somebody else?" Not sure if the original ninjutsu actually exist today, especially in America. According to this Section, all Koga is dead and only one Iga exist. I guess first you'll have to find out if there is a "Ninja" alive and teaching today and enroll in his school.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Oct 6, 2004)

The distinction between Iga and Koga is not that easy. Togakure ryu has had grand masters from both provinces.


----------



## ninhito (Oct 6, 2004)

sojobow said:
			
		

> Are not all martial arts practiced today a "bunch of stuff taken from somebody else?" Not sure if the original ninjutsu actually exist today, especially in America. According to this Section, all Koga is dead and only one Iga exist. I guess first you'll have to find out if there is a "Ninja" alive and teaching today and enroll in his school.


But with Hatsumi's ninjutsu, which have a variety of skills incorporated into them, was passed down to him by his uncle Takamatsu and was given to him from his master and from there on.


----------



## sojobow (Oct 6, 2004)

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> *sojobow: "... My thought is that in the neo schools, the reference to Ninjitsu or Ninjutsu is in effect, a moniker. Some neo schools may be more of a mixed martial art school that may have less than 25-30% of the curriculum defined as or taken from Ninjitsu. The rest being a montage of other martial arts...*
> 
> *So you'll have a school with Ninjitsu in its name, but in actuality, you'll see Philipine knife fighting, Jujitsu, ... "*
> 
> ...


To a degree, you are correct. I find nothing wrong with someone using the term in the "spirit" of what they believe. There are some schools that have dropped the term "ninjutsu" from there Ficticious Business Name (Ironic isn't it) recorded with the County Recorder's Office. In this spirit, those schools are then letting the other "ninjitsu" schools take the heat from the traditionalist while these non-in-name-only ninjitsu schools go about their business without further comment. Still teaching the same thing though as they've now disappeared in cyberspace and cannot be found using a search engine. 

Most neo schools don't teach the 18 Samurai Arts nor the 18 Ninjitsu Arts. Their entire schools curriculum may be based strictly in the "nin." Nin as in "stealth." Whatever technique in Spirit, Mind and Body must contain only "stealth." So what is the problem with these schools using the term Ninjitsue with, in actuality, only purpose of this term is to bond the system with "stealth?"



> May I also add the following: Now, if they are honest and up-front, and explain that reasoning, then most people will kinda let it slide even though it is misleading, and in many cases, fraudulent. I'm one to let it slide for the most part even though it annoys me to some degree. I leave all the fraud-busting stuff to our good friend, Don Roley.


To new students coming into the dojo, this is exactly what is explained to them BEFORE they pay one single dime from training. They are upfront to the inquiring students and do explain their reasoning. But they do not explain this in cyberspace. Again - "Stealth" which says to a degree: do not be seen nor heard. These schools have an obligation to new students who wish to train regardless if the training is paid for or is free. They have no obligation to anyone else not a part of the school (IMHO). 



> According to your reasoning (the problem of confusion by calling all these different facets of diverse arts by their original culturally-derived names), wouldn't it be less confusing to call a style that is not Japanese in origin by a name other than ninjutsu? If


To a complete outside, you may be correct. To an actual student, there is no confusion that I can see. Every martial art in existant today, borrowed from other styles/systems so if you us the term "Ninjutsu" it really makes no difference in that "Ninjutsu" itself was developed (to a great extent) from "other styles and systems not Japanese." 



> In the case of the Bujinkan, for example. We call our style, "Budou Taijutsu" - which is a very general (and frankly, generic) term. It's sort of like a Japanese way of saying "mixed martial arts." And that's what the Bujinkan style is. It is a mix of at least nine complete martial arts systems. I think we can get away with calling what we do, "ninjutsu" because we do in fact learn real (i.e. authentic/traditional) ninjutsu.


How do you know this to be true? Please explain (in generality only is ok) how one can have "at least nine *complete* martial arts systems." A "complete" system infers "all-inclusiveness." If one system is "all inclusive", how can there be something out there that is *not included* in this all-inclusive "complete" system? Then you have 8 other "all-inclusive" systems to make it 9 "all inclusive systems." Actually, this section is only a thought that came to mind reading your post. Its most likely something very simple and would not need answering. But initially interesting to think upon.


----------



## Kreth (Oct 6, 2004)

ninhito said:
			
		

> But with Hatsumi's ninjutsu, which have a variety of skills incorporated into them, was passed down to him by his uncle Takamatsu and was given to him from his master and from there on.


They were not related. 

Jeff


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 6, 2004)

sojobow said:
			
		

> According to this Section, all Koga is dead and only one Iga exist.


Technically its 3... 

Togakure Ryu, which is characterized  by wide and Low stances, and the "Three treasures" 

Kumogakure Ryu, which is characterized  by jumping and leaping combat techniques and survival and evasion tactics, as well as headbutts and other attacks not common to Togakure Ruy

Gyokushin Ryu, which is characterized by its espianage teachings.

Those are loose guidelines... perhaps one of the more experienced Ninja folk could expand on that or correct me if I am wrong...


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 6, 2004)

sojobow said:
			
		

> How do you know this to be true? Please explain (in generality only is ok) how one can have "at least nine *complete* martial arts systems." A "complete" system infers "all-inclusiveness." If one system is "all inclusive", how can there be something out there that is *not included* in this all-inclusive "complete" system? Then you have 8 other "all-inclusive" systems to make it 9 "all inclusive systems." Actually, this section is only a thought that came to mind reading your post. Its most likely something very simple and would not need answering. But initially interesting to think upon.


By complete, I believe we are speaking of "Containing all of the original Teachings of the Art" as oppossed to "This Technique from art A, and this Technique from Art B, and these 2 techniques from Art C."

Not "Complete" as in Containing every technique from every art.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Oct 6, 2004)

Ninjutsu itself is a small specialized science dealing with the gathering and usage of information, strategy, espionage, etc. Judging from that we can clearly see that most people claiming to practice ninjutsu really don't. Strategy and information gathering has extremely little to do with punches, kicks, throws, strangulations, sweeps, takedowns and the like - even though the philosophy behind it all may be connected to the aforementioned strategy, bodily movements in and of themselves are not ninjutsu and never will be...regardless of how much one would like it to be so.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 7, 2004)

> Ninjutsu itself is a small specialized science dealing with the gathering and usage of information, strategy, espionage, etc. Judging from that we can clearly see that most people claiming to practice ninjutsu really don't. Strategy and information gathering has extremely little to do with punches, kicks, throws, strangulations, sweeps, takedowns and the like - even though the philosophy behind it all may be connected to the aforementioned strategy, bodily movements in and of themselves are not ninjutsu and never will be...regardless of how much one would like it to be so.



As it was explained to me, ninjutsu (a la Togakure ryu) is really more something you learn to "add to" or "polish off" prior combatic teachings (a la Gyokko ryu and Koto ryu). I've been told more than once that "ninjutsu" somewhat assumes previous training in a ryuha more oriented toward overt combat, and "adds" elements of strategy, philosophy, tactics, deception, and so forth to those teachings.

A ninjutsu system that would focus almost entirely on overt hand-to-hand combat would just seem.... odd. In my opinion.  :asian:


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Oct 7, 2004)

Which is exactly why I wrote that most people claiming to practice "ninjutsu" don't.

And you're absolutely right - there is no ninjutsu without taijutsu. Heck, if uncle H thought as highly of people's taijutsu as we'd like him to, he'd probably revealed a whole lot more of ninjutsu by now...


----------



## sojobow (Oct 8, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Technically its 3...
> 
> Togakure Ryu, Kumogakure Ryu, Gyokushin Ryu, Those are loose guidelines... perhaps one of the more experienced Ninja folk could expand on that or correct me if I am wrong...


Technically, its Zero (0). There are no "Ninja" alive today and it looks as though there hasn't been a live "Ninja" for hundreds of years. This opinion was explained to me recently and I believe the person is correct. Helps me put a lot of things in perspective. Even, as you say: "perhaps one of the more experienced Ninja Folk could......," that answer would have to come from a dead person. The same is true, IMO, of the Samurai.

To add to your 3 Ryu answer above, (Toga, Jumo, Gyok), I don't think any of them (or any other school today) can lead anyone to the state of being a "Ninja." All they can do is teach us what "they think." No one alive knows, but they can teach us to mimic only what they think existed 500 years ago (and most schools don't even try to teach actual Ninjutsu anyway). (I'm gonna take the hit for this one - let it rip guys, I deserve it)


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Oct 8, 2004)

Nice move there, interchanging the discussion topics ninja and ninjutsu. Afraid it doesn't get us anywhere though.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 9, 2004)

Nimravus is right. The topic was ninjutsu. Not your fictional 'ninja'.


----------



## sojobow (Oct 9, 2004)

Nimravus said:
			
		

> Nice move there, interchanging the discussion topics ninja and ninjutsu. Afraid it doesn't get us anywhere though.


Actually, the conversation between Techno and myself was on the subject of Ninja and not ninjutsu.



			
				sojobow said:
			
		

> Are not all martial arts practiced today a "bunch of stuff taken from somebody else?" Not sure if the original ninjutsu actually exist today, especially in America. According to this Section, all Koga is dead and only one Iga exist. I guess first you'll have to find out if there is a "Ninja" alive and teaching today and enroll in his school.


Note the word "Ninja." I guess first you'll have to find out if there is a *"Ninja" *alive and teaching today and enroll in his school.[/a"]: "

The Technopunk brought up the three Ryu with this:



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Technically its 3...
> Togakure Ryu, which is characterized by wide and Low stances, and the "Three treasures"
> Kumogakure Ryu, which is characterized by jumping and leaping combat techniques and survival and evasion tactics, as well as headbutts and other attacks not common to Togakure Ruy
> Gyokushin Ryu, which is characterized by its espianage teachings.
> Those are loose guidelines... perhaps one of the more experienced Ninja folk could expand on that or correct me if I am wrong...


Note the "Ninja folk'" in Techno's last sentence. Thus, the three-way conversation



			
				ninhito said:
			
		

> Hey how come everyone is all caught up on what is what and whose is better (no offense). There are two fundamental ways that you would want to learn ninjutsu: you either want to become a ninja like in the old days of Japan (the weird thing is im black) or you want to learn it for self defense. Most people want do it to learn how to defend themself which is alright.


You will also note the "ninja" is part of the opening threads discussion.  (see second sentence).


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 10, 2004)

Ah, let me try to stop this distraction right here.

There are no more samurai after the decree by the Meiji goverment abolished their class. But you can find living traditions passed down from them even today. There are no ninja today, but the same thing about living tradtions can be said.

If you want to find out what the ninja would do, you should be asking those that study the traditions being taught in Japan. You should not be looking for someone to announce that they are spies that use swords and throwing stars in the modern age.

Does that clarify things enough?


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 10, 2004)

sojobow said:
			
		

> Technically, its Zero (0). There are no "Ninja" alive today and it looks as though there hasn't been a live "Ninja" for hundreds of years.


 Actually, if you take the stance that Takamatsu sensei was in fact the "Last Ninja" , its only been 30 years or so... 

 And to clarify my position, when I refer to "Ninja Folk" I am referring to Ninjutsu Students in general.


----------



## sojobow (Oct 12, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Actually, if you take the stance that Takamatsu sensei was in fact the "Last Ninja" , its only been 30 years or so...
> 
> And to clarify my position, when I refer to "Ninja Folk" I am referring to Ninjutsu Students in general.


Not important.  Who knows who the "Last Ninja" was.  The last of them perished hundreds of years ago.


----------



## Seig (Oct 12, 2004)

Stop being argumentative
Seig
MT OPS Admin


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Oct 12, 2004)

Even if you don't want to see Takamatsu sensei as the last living ninja, Toda sensei and Ishitani sensei both died in the 20th century as far as I know.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2004)

Methinks a few qualifiers might need to be added.

The reason that Takamatsu is often hailed as the "last ninja" is because he is the last ninjutsu master to have applied his skills to war. The term I have more often heard is "last combat ninja".

*shrugs* That's how I took it, anyway.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 12, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The reason that Takamatsu is often hailed as the "last ninja" is because he is the last ninjutsu master to have applied his skills to war. The term I have more often heard is "last combat ninja".


 I agree, that's how I heard it as well.   of course, a lot of people hold the idea that modern practitioners of the art are NOT Ninja, and if you consider that viewpoint, than wouldnt that make him the "last ninja"?


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Oct 12, 2004)

Don Roley: "There are no ninja today, but the same thing about living tradtions can be said."

What do you think about the use of the term "ninja" to refer to someone who practices ninjutsu? Of course there are no more ninja / shinobi no mono / etc. like there was in the past, so would the word acquire a new definition in our modern context (even in a slang-like capacity)?

Or would it be more correct to call a ninjutsu practicioner a "ninjutsuka" (a al kareteka, aikidoka, judoka etc.)?

Or would it be more correct - and easier to say - "budoka" to refer to modern practicioners of ninjutsu, since what they train in includes much more than ninjutsu?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 12, 2004)

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> What do you think about the use of the term "ninja" to refer to someone who practices ninjutsu?



Kind of like refering to a student of Katori Shinto ryu as a "samurai." In other words, a little silly.

I prefer your use of "budoka". But I most often use the term "Taijutsuka."


----------



## Kreth (Oct 12, 2004)

As the majority of the x-kan training is more focused on "mainstream" budo than espionage, I don't think anyone (with the exception of Hatsumi sensei and perhaps the Japanese shihan) would be correct in referring to themselves as a ninja. 

Jeff


----------



## sojobow (Oct 12, 2004)

Kreth said:
			
		

> As the majority of the x-kan training is more focused on "mainstream" budo than espionage, I don't think anyone (with the exception of Hatsumi sensei and perhaps the Japanese shihan) would be correct in referring to themselves as a ninja. Jeff


Two thoughts. Both revised my thinking on the subject.

*Item 1.) " ...... if I crawl around on all fours, bark, lick my balls, and chase cats, I truly AM a dog." K. *

Make the above a question instead of a statement. End the sentence with ", am I truly a dog?" 

*Thus: "..... if I crawl around on all fours, bark, lick my balls, and chase cats, am I truly a dog?* Point is, regardless of what we train in, or what we teach, we "ain't" no Ninja nor are we studying the art of the Ninja. What I study is what my sensei teaches. What you study is what your teacher teaches. Nothing more, nothing less. You can easily prove me wrong by simply proving that what you learn is truly the art of the shinobi.  I would think the best evidence to prove that anyone studies the art of the shinobi is to present to us a real live shinobi.  But since they all died hundreds of years ago, kind of hard to prove anything.

*Item 2: "If you were to don a black hat and coat, grow a beard and go to temple everyday and pray, would yolu be a jew? No. Can you join a group by mimiking them? No. So no matter how much you achieve the attributes of a ninja (no matter what they are), you are not a ninja. " *

Note the quotation marks!


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Oct 12, 2004)

It seems as if sojobow refers to "shinobi" as an ethnic group of people who died out centuries ago. It ain't that simple. Having said that, Bujinkan members can hardly be called ninja.


----------



## Bester (Oct 12, 2004)

What part do they cut off to make you a ninja?


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 12, 2004)

*Mod. Note. 
    Please, keep the conversation to a kid-safe level.

    -Technopunk
    -MT Moderator-*


----------



## Kreth (Oct 12, 2004)

sojobow said:
			
		

> Note the quotation marks!


Note the lack of references for those quotes... 

Jeff


----------



## Bujingodai (Oct 12, 2004)

Certainly getting away from the original topic matter. If this is being held in an Independent forum, or Neo forum whatever why is this being argued at all?

I would also agree though that calling yourself a Ninja, no matter what system you study in is false IMO. Ninjutsuka, Budoka whatever suits but not Ninja, you may be training in the spirit of it, but it's like calling yourself a musketier (sp) because you practise fencing.

The arguement will never be won, why continue it.


----------



## Enson (Oct 12, 2004)

Bujingodai said:
			
		

> Certainly getting away from the original topic matter. If this is being held in an Independent forum, or Neo forum whatever why is this being argued at all?
> 
> I would also agree though that calling yourself a Ninja, no matter what system you study in is false IMO. Ninjutsuka, Budoka whatever suits but not Ninja, you may be training in the spirit of it, but it's like calling yourself a musketier (sp) because you practise fencing.
> 
> The arguement will never be won, why continue it.


good point! i can accept that.

peace


----------



## sojobow (Oct 12, 2004)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Note the lack of references for those quotes...  Jeff


Note the Martialtalk Forum Rules regarding links to other Forums.

(Thanks guys, I'm over -50 and no, I don't want any of your crack - crazy enough without it - no sale here buddy)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 12, 2004)

sojobow said:
			
		

> Note the Martialtalk Forum Rules regarding links to other Forums.
> 
> (Thanks guys, I'm over -50 and no, I don't want any of your crack - crazy enough without it - no sale here buddy)





> *Forum Promotion / Linking*
> - _*Using the forum to solicit members for a competing forum is forbidden*_. MartialTalk's primary purpose is to be a discussion forum. Just as Coke does not allow Pepsi equal space in their booths, we can not grow by allowing our competition to use us as a free promotional tool. If higher visibility is desired, please contact an Admin for advertising rates. This includes, but is not limited to "Check out my/our/this new forum" type posts. It would be foolish to allow our competitors to freely advertise in our forum, as well as in poor taste for those to just SPAM us seeking to draw away our membership.
> 
> *EXCEPTIONS:*
> ...




I don't see a problem.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2004)

> of course, a lot of people hold the idea that modern practitioners of the art are NOT Ninja, and if you consider that viewpoint, than wouldnt that make him the "last ninja"?



*shrugs* I could refer you to my sig. The quotation is from Hatsumi-soke's recent book, _Ninpo: Wisdom for Life_.

Personally, I think what Hatsumi is saying is a "philosophical" definition, not a "historical" one. But, really, who knows??  :idunno: 



> Or would it be more correct - and easier to say - "budoka" to refer to modern practicioners of ninjutsu, since what they train in includes much more than ninjutsu?



Hrmmm.... I prefer "ninpoka", personally.



> As the majority of the x-kan training is more focused on "mainstream" budo than espionage, I don't think anyone (with the exception of Hatsumi sensei and perhaps the Japanese shihan) would be correct in referring to themselves as a ninja.



I agree.  :asian: 



> Point is, regardless of what we train in, or what we teach, we "ain't" no Ninja nor are we studying the art of the Ninja. What I study is what my sensei teaches. What you study is what your teacher teaches. Nothing more, nothing less. You can easily prove me wrong by simply proving that what you learn is truly the art of the shinobi. I would think the best evidence to prove that anyone studies the art of the shinobi is to present to us a real live shinobi. But since they all died hundreds of years ago, kind of hard to prove anything.



It might do you well to actually learn a thing or two about historical research, sojobow. Or critical thinking and analyses, at any rate.

Laterz.


----------



## Kizaru (Oct 12, 2004)

sojobow said:
			
		

> *I crawl around on all fours, bark, lick my balls, and chase cats, *


When you wake up in the morning, you beat yourself on the head with pots and pans, don't you?


----------



## Kizaru (Oct 12, 2004)

Bujingodai said:
			
		

> Certainly getting away from the original topic matter...I would also agree though that calling yourself a Ninja, no matter what system you study in is false IMO. Ninjutsuka, Budoka whatever suits but not Ninja, you may be training in the spirit of it, but it's like calling yourself a musketier (sp) because you practise fencing...


I wonder if 3 or 400 years from now, schools will be opened where the US Marine Corps hand to hand combatives are taught. Will those students call themselves "Marines"?

:apv:


----------



## sojobow (Oct 13, 2004)

Deleted


----------



## Deschain (Oct 13, 2004)

Being able to lick your balls does not a dog make, it probably makes you fall off the couch alot. 
This is a stupid argument.


----------



## sojobow (Oct 13, 2004)

Deschain said:
			
		

> Being able to lick your balls does not a dog make, it probably makes you fall off the couch alot.
> This is a stupid argument.


I totally agree with you.  But when you look at who misrepresented / lied etc, it isn't too illogical to feel this way:

This is what I actually posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Kreth*
_As the majority of the x-kan training is more focused on "mainstream" budo than espionage, I don't think anyone (with the exception of Hatsumi sensei and perhaps the Japanese shihan) would be correct in referring to themselves as a ninja. Jeff_

Two thoughts. Both revised my thinking on the subject.

*Item 1.) " ...... if I crawl around on all fours, bark, lick my balls, and chase cats, I truly AM a dog." K. *

Make the above a question instead of a statement. End the sentence with ", am I truly a dog?" 

Note the sentence begins "...if I crawl......"  Now look at what was represented as being my quote as represented by Kizaru:

Quote:
Originally Posted by *sojobow*
_*I crawl around on all fours, bark, lick my balls, and chase cats, *_


When you wake up in the morning, you beat yourself on the head with pots and pans, don't you?

Note that the word "if" is intentionally omitted to completely misrepresent my Original Post.  So it's quite easy to see why you  responded as you have.  Things like this happen when lying and deceit is the motivation.  At least Kizaru should wait until I'm suspended.


----------



## sojobow (Oct 13, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It might do you well to actually learn a thing or two about historical research, sojobow. Or critical thinking and analyses, at any rate.  Laterz.


At least my words and thought are my own and not those regurgatated (sp.l)from our new moderator Don Roley (congratulations belatedly).  I agree in his (Roley's) level of intelligence, but to constantly us Mr. Roley's phrases and thoughts may give you some degree of excess confidence, but your constant mimiking is obvious. 

You might also want to vigorously pursue your own advice.

(Moderator, will I get kicked out if I call heretic888 by a new name such as J.R. Jr.?  Just kidding - having a little fun)

Now, back to the subject of the thread.  I don't remember it being the lovable sojobow.


----------



## Kizaru (Oct 13, 2004)

sojobow said:
			
		

> *Item 1.) " ...... if I crawl around on all fours, bark, lick my balls, and chase cats, I truly AM a dog." K. *
> 
> Make the above a question instead of a statement. End the sentence with ", am I truly a dog?"


The people who participate on this forum are not stupid. If you continue to act like a clown, you should expect to be treated as one.


----------



## Seig (Oct 13, 2004)

Stop the personal attacks.
Seig
MT OPS ADMIN


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 13, 2004)

*Mod. Note. 
     Please, keep the conversation to a kid-safe level.

 This is the FINAL warning.

 -Technopunk
     -MT Moderator-*


----------



## KenpoTess (Oct 13, 2004)

*MOD NOTE

Due to some blatant issues on this thread:

Thread Locked Pending Admin Review

~Tess
-MT S. MOD-
*


----------

