This is from the author of Killology. Anyone ever heard of Dave
Grossman or any of these training series he has authored?

Hal

http://www.gavindebecker.com/bulletproof_mind.htm

Police officers and soldiers know all about maintaining
physical readiness for combat, but it is the mind that
must first be properly prepared, the mind which controls
the hands, arms, eyes, and ears.

This video series was recorded live at a special meeting
of experts from law enforcement and the military. They
gathered to discuss just one thing: killing - with our
Nation's leading expert on the topic, Col. Dave Grossman.

From him, you'll learn how the body responds to lethal
combat, what happens to your blood flow, your muscles,
your judgment, memory, vision, and hearing when
someone is trying to kill you.

You'll learn how to keep going even if you're shot, and
how to prepare your mind for survival instead of defeat.

Dave Grossman's training is not merely information - it is
armor you'll carry throughout your life.

-------------------------------Gavin de Becker

Six-Tape Series:
1. The Hidden Truth About Lethal Combat
2. How the Body Responds to Combat, Part 1
3. How the Body Responds to Combat, Part 2
4. The Bulletproof Mind
5. Terrorism and School Violence
6. Who is Teaching Our Kids to Kill

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 12:14:12 -0800

h...@nospam.com wrote:

> WTF?

Indeed.

> >Any
> >"expert witness" status afforded to him on this matter would be
based
> >on his research and published papers/articles/whatnot in the area,
NOT
> >ON HIS MILITARY SERVICE.
>
> Did you even read his bio and vitae? All clearly linked right off
the
> home page.

Did you even read the part where I keep telling you that it's NOT
RELEVANT!

> > And any viable disagreement with his
> >conclusions from RMA participants or anyone else would be directed
at
> >his research, articles, etc. and NOT based on whether or not the
person
> >disagreeing had "seen this first hand."
>
> That was just a comment, not meant to be conclusive or anything.

A comment intended as an obvious jab.

> I
> thought his credentials were well posted and referenced for all to
> see.

And I thought I'd told you 5 times now that IT'S NOT RELEVANT. His
research and conclusions stand or fall ON THEIR OWN MERIT and his
"credentials" and "bio and vitae" are completely irelevant to them.

> Sorry if you missed them.

And I'm sorry that you can't read plain English.

> >Whether or not I agree with *HIS* points is completely unrelated to
> >your posting the link or the fact that you are giving weight to his
> >arguments based on irelevant experience. YOU are not saying
> >*ANYTHING*. To date all you've said is that he has some
"interesting
> >points" and posted some excerpts from his articles without actually
> >saying what points you think are "interesting" to say nothing of
which
> >ones you actually agree with and support.
>
> Well golly gee, wouldn't you think the ones I posted were them?

No. Because you have specifically said that you don't think that you
agree with everything he says.

How 'bout we make this nice and simple and completely *ignore* the
points to start with and jump *strait* to the conclusions. Which of
his *conclusions* do you agree with and which do you dissagree with?
We can come back and hit the whys-and-wherefores of the points later.
:P

(well, actually someone else will 'cuz I'm going on a weekend)

(IH)

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 06:20:26 -0800

John Carmack wrote:
> hal@nospam.com wrote:
> > This is from the author of Killology. Anyone ever heard of Dave
> > Grossman or any of these training series he has authored?
> >
> > Hal
> >
>
> Dave Grossman is the guy that got on television a lot post Columbine
by
> claiming that Doom was a "murder simulator".

I don't remember him using that term exactly (though he may have). In
his article on the subject on the web site he certainly doesn't use
that term. In his article he has two points about First Person Shooter
(FPS) games. First, that they're effective physiological and
psychological trainers for live shoot encounters and that similar
(often identical) simulations are used for LEO and Military training.
And second, that these FPS games, as simulators, lack the buffering
techniques used to teach "appropriate use of force" that LEO and
Military organizations use.

And, to be perfectly honest I've seen Point Shooting (a Combat Firearms
technique/skill/school-of-thought) advocates agree that FPS games do,
in fact, teach skills similar to Point Shooting and are quite
transferable to real life.

Peace favor your sword (IH)

From:	Shuurai
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 09:55:54 -0800

Matthew Weigel wrote:
> Shuurai wrote:
>
> > To some degree, yes - especially the newer ones where the people
> > really *do* look like people. A lot of the newer games
(Half-Life2
> > for example) actually prohibit shooting of "non-threat" characters
> > in the game (civilians, friendly NPC's, etc)
>
> "Newer"? I've been replaying Thief: The Dark Project lately,
> which IIRC came out 5 years ago. You lose if you kill a single
> person (although "KTFO" doesn't cross that line...), and similarly,
> you *suck* at fighting.

Good example... I'd forgotten about that one...

> > If your kid isn't capable of knowing the difference between
> > shooting someone in Counter-Strike vs. shooting someone on the
> > street, then your kid should't be *playing* Counter-Strike until
> > he matures a little more.
>
> The point is, though, that a major impediment to doing that -
> low-level psychological restraints - may be mitigated by the games.

I've seen very little evidence to indicate that it translates into
anything in the real world. How many examples do we have of real-
life killings (or even attacks) that have been directly influenced
by gaming?

> Of course, that's *all* it is, but...

If true, the same applies to movies, television, and hell even books
that describe killing. Maybe I'm old fashioned by I'd prefer to blame
the guy that *does* the crime before I go blaming someone else.

> (as an aside: by that argument, then, do hal's comments about how
> hard it would be to actually hurt someone with your training in real
> life actually apply to the game-playing public? :-)

These games can help your reaction times, hand-eye coordniation, and
target recognition... which obviously could help you fight better.
They might desensitize you to the idea of hurting someone. But the
bottom line, in my estimation, is that if you go out and hurt someone
it's because you want to.

For an example I'll point back at Columbine. Even if we accept for
the sake of argument that Doom is what desensitized these kids to
the point where they were capable of murder, we still have to take
into account other factors.

They were constantly being picked on by other kids, they had talked
about and even committed violent acts in the past, and they were
being practically ignored by their parents and teachers. Even if
the game made them psychologically able to murder, there still needs
to be a reason to murder.

Several years ago a kid killed himself after his character died
in AD&D, and people tried to blame the game. The fact that he
was a drug addict, manic depressive who'd tried several times
to kill himself before ever playing the game was ignored.
People want something to blame.

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:18:29 -0600

Shuurai wrote:

>>The point is, though, that a major impediment to doing that -
>>low-level psychological restraints - may be mitigated by the games.
>
>
> I've seen very little evidence to indicate that it translates into
> anything in the real world. How many examples do we have of real-
> life killings (or even attacks) that have been directly influenced
> by gaming?

Well, by the theory... gaming doesn't motivate the killings the same way
listening to Ozzy Osbourne makes you want to worship the devil, kill
people, and do bad reality television. ;-)

Instead, it removes an impediment, if you have the motivation, to acting
on it.

>>Of course, that's *all* it is, but...
>
>
> If true, the same applies to movies, television, and hell even books
> that describe killing.

Well, actually, yes on 2 out of 3 (according to the theory). There is
arguably a cognitive difference in seeing and reading about it.

> Maybe I'm old fashioned by I'd prefer to blame
> the guy that *does* the crime before I go blaming someone else.

It's not blame, in the normal sense.

violent video games -/> serial killer, but
violent video games AND motivation to kill -> serial killer.

As a similar example, Trav has claimed a few times (I haven't verified
the claims, but that's beside the point) that higher traffic speeds
don't, statistically, cause more accidents; they do, however, make more
accidents fatal. Thus, restricting traffic speeds can have a positive
impact on car accident fatalities.

(If Trav's claim is supported by the evidence, though, I don't think
Grossman's are as supported in terms of societal impact)

From:	calvinthecat at ocsnet.net
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 11:50:21 -0800

lklaw...@my-deja.com wrote:

> What's the matter is, AS I'VE SAID 3 TIMES NOW, his military service
is
> IRELEVANT! Just admit that it was a tasteless, tactless, and
irelevant
> attempt to take a swipe at your enemies on RMA and then go on. Any
> "expert witness" status afforded to him on this matter would be based
> on his research and published papers/articles/whatnot in the area,
NOT
> ON HIS MILITARY SERVICE. And any viable disagreement with his
> conclusions from RMA participants or anyone else would be directed at
> his research, articles, etc. and NOT based on whether or not the
person
> disagreeing had "seen this first hand."
>
> Whether or not I agree with *HIS* points is completely unrelated to
> your posting the link or the fact that you are giving weight to his
> arguments based on irelevant experience. YOU are not saying
> *ANYTHING*. To date all you've said is that he has some "interesting
> points" and posted some excerpts from his articles without actually
> saying what points you think are "interesting" to say nothing of
which
> ones you actually agree with and support.

Well it is Friday so it looks like it is time for Hal to ignore this
thread. Don't worry because down the road he will brag about how *he*
raised too many point to count and everyone else couldn't answer a
single one. LOL! If he stays true to form he will bring this topic up
again and again with a "Oh yeah Kirk well how about them misrepresentation of this thread>". Then he will continue to lie about
it till you post a link and quote. Once you do he will ignore it.

Same old predictable Hal. He will have a brand new political troll for
us next week.

From:	Shuurai
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	20 Jan 2005 15:26:54 -0800

> >Shuurai has two posts in the two threads you started about
> >this site... not a whisper about weapons in either one. Perhaps
> >you could come up with a better reason?
>
> Sorry, you are correct, he used "combat", not weapons. Since
> most contention has been over weapons use in particular, I
> figured that was his objection. As I've never taken any particular
> stance against "combat".

Nah, just anything that might be remotely *effective* in combat...

Damn near every argument you have ever offered when it comes to
weapons shows that you have no knowledge of the subject.

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:44:50 -0700

On 20 Jan 2005 15:26:54 -0800, "Shuurai"
wrote:

>
>> >Shuurai has two posts in the two threads you started about
>> >this site... not a whisper about weapons in either one. Perhaps
>> >you could come up with a better reason?
>>
>> Sorry, you are correct, he used "combat", not weapons. Since
>> most contention has been over weapons use in particular, I
>> figured that was his objection. As I've never taken any particular
>> stance against "combat".
>
>Nah, just anything that might be remotely *effective* in combat...

Oh, yea, right trying to "predict" which way someone is going to
dodge. And let's not forget the "coordinated attack" with your
buddies training. let's see, what other absurd ideas have you had
lately? I can't remember at the moment. What am I missing?

>
>Damn near every argument you have ever offered when it comes to
>weapons shows that you have no knowledge of the subject.

I know more about weapons than you apparently. I am also smart
enought to know that 99.9999% of the time I'm not going to need one,
and if I ever did have to use one, I've already lost.

You probably don't even understand what that means, do you?

Hal

From:	hcannon18
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:14:28 -0600

> I know more about weapons than you apparently. I am also smart
> enought to know that 99.9999% of the time I'm not going to need one,
> and if I ever did have to use one, I've already lost.
>
Most people will never need a weapon - those who do will need it very badly.
Lost? Die then.

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:15:34 -0700

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:14:28 -0600, "hcannon18"
wrote:

>
>> I know more about weapons than you apparently. I am also smart
>> enought to know that 99.9999% of the time I'm not going to need one,
>> and if I ever did have to use one, I've already lost.
>>
>Most people will never need a weapon - those who do will need it very badly.

You need your tinfoil hat to deflect micrometeorites more.

>Lost? Die then.

We all die. Just some of us don't need to sit around all the time
fretting about it .

It always seems so ironic that the religious are always the most
afraid.

Hal

>

From:	hcannon18
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:07:11 -0600

<> >Most people will never need a weapon - those who do will need it very
badly.
>
> You need your tinfoil hat to deflect micrometeorites more.

I am not the one with a pathological hatred of Christians, the USA, the
elected President, self defense, democracy, and myself, pathetic one. To
late for a tinfoil hat for you.

> >Lost? Die then.
>
> We all die. Just some of us don't need to sit around all the time
> fretting about it .

No you just surrender to your killer and cowardly beg for mercy.

> It always seems so ironic that the religious are always the most
> afraid.

It is ironic you would post about something you know absolutely nothing
about and have a warped hatred of. Or maybe not ironic but just your usual
moronic post.

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 09:57:22 -0800

Matthew Weigel wrote:
> lklawson@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > combat. Hang his research and credentials; this is "a man who has
seen
> > this first hand"!!!!
>
> Errr... Kirk? That's a credential.
>
> And no credentials say a thing about the quality of his research or
> conclusions.

Excuse me, I thought you were refering to accademic or research
credentials.

> >>when do we stop? When he says something with which we
> >>disagree?
> >
> > Sounds good to me. :P
>
> How about... "when he starts making claims which aren't based on the
> valid, reproducable results he's gathered"?
Naturally.

Peace favor your sword (IH)

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:20:23 -0600

lklawson@my-deja.com wrote:

> Excuse me, I thought you were refering to accademic or research
> credentials.

They have the same relevance when we can look at the studies he did, and
the conclusions he drew.

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	20 Jan 2005 08:24:49 -0800

h...@nospam.com wrote:

> From him, you'll learn how the body responds to lethal
> combat, what happens to your blood flow, your muscles,
> your judgment, memory, vision, and hearing when
> someone is trying to kill you.
>
> You'll learn how to keep going even if you're shot, and
> how to prepare your mind for survival instead of defeat.

....

> Six-Tape Series:
> 1. The Hidden Truth About Lethal Combat
> 2. How the Body Responds to Combat, Part 1
> 3. How the Body Responds to Combat, Part 2

OK, yeah. As I suspected. This is all common knowledge that can be
grepped from most any Self Defense gun 'zine and who know's how many
places online.

Still, good stuff to consider and, though common knowledge in the "gun
culture" is not often discussed by most Martial Artists. It's such a
good idea that it's already on my list of WOTTs (as well as some
related topics).

(IH)

From:	Shuurai
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 09:11:14 -0800

> I don't remember him using that term exactly (though he may
> have). In his article on the subject on the web site he certainly
> doesn't use that term. In his article he has two points about
> First Person Shooter (FPS) games. First, that they're effective
> physiological and psychological trainers for live shoot encounters
> and that similar (often identical) simulations are used for LEO
> and Military training.

To some degree, yes - especially the newer ones where the people
really *do* look like people. A lot of the newer games (Half-Life2
for example) actually prohibit shooting of "non-threat" characters
in the game (civilians, friendly NPC's, etc)

But all that being said, if you go out and shoot somebody for real
because you see it in a game (or a movie, or hear it on a record)
the problem still lies with you. As one comedian once put it, if
your child does anything because Ozzy Osbourne said so, you've
failed in your role as a parent. The same applies to gaming.
If your kid isn't capable of knowing the difference between shooting
someone in Counter-Strike vs. shooting someone on the street, then
your kid should't be *playing* Counter-Strike until he matures a
little more.

> And second, that these FPS games, as simulators, lack the buffering
> techniques used to teach "appropriate use of force" that LEO and
> Military organizations use.

There are a few that actually allow (and in some cases reward) the
use of non-lethal methods.

> And, to be perfectly honest I've seen Point Shooting (a Combat
> Firearms technique/skill/school-of-thought) advocates agree that
> FPS games do, in fact, teach skills similar to Point Shooting
> and are quite transferable to real life.

Oh, heck yeah. Especially in terms of hand-eye coordination and
target recognition. The ability to recognize friend or foe
very quickly is an important skill in some of these games.

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:28:15 -0600

Shuurai wrote:

> To some degree, yes - especially the newer ones where the people
> really *do* look like people. A lot of the newer games (Half-Life2
> for example) actually prohibit shooting of "non-threat" characters
> in the game (civilians, friendly NPC's, etc)

"Newer"? I've been replaying Thief: The Dark Project lately, which IIRC
came out 5 years ago. You lose if you kill a single person (although
"KTFO" doesn't cross that line...), and similarly, you *suck* at fighting.

> If your kid isn't capable of knowing the difference between shooting
> someone in Counter-Strike vs. shooting someone on the street, then
> your kid should't be *playing* Counter-Strike until he matures a
> little more.

The point is, though, that a major impediment to doing that - low-level
psychological restraints - may be mitigated by the games.

Of course, that's *all* it is, but...

(as an aside: by that argument, then, do hal's comments about how hard
it would be to actually hurt someone with your training in real life
actually apply to the game-playing public? :-)

From:	calvinthecat at ocsnet.net
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	20 Jan 2005 16:40:10 -0800

h...@nospam.com wrote:

> Oh, yea, right trying to "predict" which way someone is going to
> dodge. And let's not forget the "coordinated attack" with your
> buddies training. let's see, what other absurd ideas have you had
> lately? I can't remember at the moment. What am I missing?

The fact that you *lost* those arguments. You didn't just lose by a
bit - you made yourself look like a fool. It was ugly.

> >Damn near every argument you have ever offered when it comes to
> >weapons shows that you have no knowledge of the subject.
>
> I know more about weapons than you apparently. I am also smart
> enought to know that 99.9999% of the time I'm not going to need one,
> and if I ever did have to use one, I've already lost.

If you need it and don't have it then you will never need it again.
That does not mean that people who need a weapon *and* have it will
lose. Well I could see how you would lose no mater how you are armed
so you do have a point there.

> You probably don't even understand what that means, do you?
>
>
> Hal

It means you are a loser.

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 09:42:39 -0800

Matthew Weigel wrote:
> hal@nospam.com wrote:
>
> > I certainly can't agree with everything he says, but I do think he
is
> > right that killing games desensitizes kids to violence.
>
> Why?
>
> You're asking us to pay attention to him on the basis of his
> credentials-

No he isn't. Based on hal's statement, "it seems this is a man who has
seen this first hand, but unlike many of his group, actually has the
courage to speak out about it" hal is asking us to pay attention to the
guy because of some supposed (as yet unsubstanciated) participation in
combat. Hang his research and credentials; this is "a man who has seen
this first hand"!!!!

>when do we stop? When he says something with which we
> disagree?

Sounds good to me. :P

Peace favor your sword (IH)

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:47:13 -0600

lklawson@my-deja.com wrote:

> combat. Hang his research and credentials; this is "a man who has seen
> this first hand"!!!!

Errr... Kirk? That's a credential.

And no credentials say a thing about the quality of his research or
conclusions.

>>when do we stop? When he says something with which we
>>disagree?
>
> Sounds good to me. :P

How about... "when he starts making claims which aren't based on the
valid, reproducable results he's gathered"?

From:	Shuurai
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	20 Jan 2005 20:44:31 -0800

> >That's right, Hal... everyone but you is clueless. You're
> >pretty darned amazing.
> >
> >> You know, like some idiot claiming they can make an
> >> accurate prediction about which way someone is going
> >> to move.
> >
> >For the umpteenth time, dumbass, it's not a "prediction".
> >It's learning to read body movement and correlating that
> >with action.
>
> And there is none. None reliable anyway.

You mean there are none that you understand.

> >Several good examples were provided, but you were too
> >busy playing the role of asshole to notice.
>
> Horseshit. You had a ridiculous contention and your
> argument was absurd and failing.

You obviously didn't understand the contention or the
argument, and you provided neither of your own. How you
interpret that as your "winning" is a matter for psychologists
to debate. Me, I just think you're an asshole.

> >And see, that is one of your biggest problems... you
> >are so intent on disputing people that you completely
> >miss the point of what they're actually saying.
>
> No, I got the point. What you were saying was horseshit.

No, you missed the point like you miss every other point.
As someone else pointed out not long ego in another thread,
you sound more and more like the Monty Python "argument"
sketch all the time. You contradict over and over again
and think that's the same as an argument.

The only difference is, the Python guys were *making* a
joke, whereas you *are* the joke.

> >It makes you look like a complete clown. Not that I'm
> >complaining - it's really the only thing that makes you
> interesting.
>
> At least I am interesting.

And it's a start. Keep trying and maybe someday you'll
have some other redeeming features.

From:	John Carmack
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	20 Jan 2005 20:35:22 -0800

hal@nospam.com wrote:
> This is from the author of Killology. Anyone ever heard of Dave
> Grossman or any of these training series he has authored?
>
> Hal
>

Dave Grossman is the guy that got on television a lot post Columbine by
claiming that Doom was a "murder simulator". He played to the camera a
lot, putting on face paint and dressing up for shots, etc. I certainly
don't have a high opinion of him.

John Carmack

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:41:41 -0700

On 20 Jan 2005 20:35:22 -0800, "John Carmack"
wrote:

>hal@nospam.com wrote:
>> This is from the author of Killology. Anyone ever heard of Dave
>> Grossman or any of these training series he has authored?
>>
>> Hal
>>
>
>Dave Grossman is the guy that got on television a lot post Columbine by
>claiming that Doom was a "murder simulator". He played to the camera a
>lot, putting on face paint and dressing up for shots, etc. I certainly
>don't have a high opinion of him.

I certainly can't agree with everything he says, but I do think he is
right that killing games desensitizes kids to violence. It is exactly
the same operant conditioning the military uses to turn their shoot to
kill rate from 20% to 90 %.

He also has some very interesting points about the long term
psychological effects of being forced to kill.

http://www.killology.com/art_psych_casualties.htm

and I was especially interested in this one:

http://www.killology.com/art_psych_intro.htm

"Psychological Effects of Combat"

Introduction: A Legacy of Lies

An examination of the psychological effects of combat must begin by
acknowledging that there are some positive aspects to combat.
Throughout recorded history these positive aspects have been
emphasized and exaggerated in order to protect the self-image of
combatants, to honor the memory of the fallen and rationalize their
deaths, to aggrandize and glorify political leaders and military
commanders, and to manipulate populations into supporting war and
sending their sons to their deaths. But the fact that these positive
aspects have been manipulated and exploited does not deny their
existence. There is a reason for the powerful attraction of combat
over the centuries, and there is no value in going from the
dysfunctional extreme of glorifying war to the equally dysfunctional
extreme of denying its attraction.

The ability to recognize and confront danger, the powerful group
bonding that occurs in times of stress, the awe-inspiring spectacle of
a nation focused and aligned to achieve a single aim, selfless
dedication to abstract concepts and goals, and the ability to overcome
the powerful imperatives of the survival instinct and willingly die
for others: these common aspects of war represent both important
survival traits and a potentially positive comment on basic human
nature. But if war does have a capacity for reflecting some usually
hidden, positive aspects of humanity, it irrefutably does so at a
great and tragic cost.

One obvious and tragic price of war is the toll of death and
destruction. But there is an additional cost, a psychological cost
borne by the survivors of combat, and a full understanding of this
cost has been too long repressed by a legacy of self-deception and
intentional misrepresentation. After peeling away this "legacy of
lies" that has perpetuated and glorified warfare there is no escaping
the conclusion that combat, and the killing that lies at the heart of
combat, is an extraordinarily traumatic and psychologically costly
endeavor that profoundly impacts all who participate in it.
---------------------------------

it seems this is a man who has seen this first hand, but unlike many
of his group, actually has the courage to speak out about it.

Hal

>
>John Carmack

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:49:31 -0600

hal@nospam.com wrote:

> I certainly can't agree with everything he says, but I do think he is
> right that killing games desensitizes kids to violence.

Why?

You're asking us to pay attention to him on the basis of his
credentials- when do we stop? When he says something with which we
disagree?

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:17:08 -0700

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:49:31 -0600, Matthew Weigel
wrote:

>hal@nospam.com wrote:
>
>> I certainly can't agree with everything he says, but I do think he is
>> right that killing games desensitizes kids to violence.
>
>Why?
>
>You're asking us to pay attention to him on the basis of his
>credentials- when do we stop? When he says something with which we
>disagree?

Um, yes of course, if that is what you want. If there is something
with which you disagree, and wish to mention it, feel free. If you
want to include a reason, feel free to do that too.

Hal

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:35:11 -0600

hal@nospam.com wrote:

> Um, yes of course, if that is what you want.

So... you won't discuss either a) why you mentioned his credentials, or
b) what it is that you think validates ignoring those credentials and
deciding he's wrong about some things?

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:22:31 -0700

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:35:11 -0600, Matthew Weigel
wrote:

>hal@nospam.com wrote:
>
>> Um, yes of course, if that is what you want.
>
>So... you won't discuss either a) why you mentioned his credentials,

I only mentioned his credentials as an aside because he was taking a
non-typical stance of a career military man, and actually questioning
the long term negative effects of combat on veterans, and the
difficulty of what it is we ask people to do.

>or
>b) what it is that you think validates ignoring those credentials and
>deciding he's wrong about some things?

I would rather deal with the issues than blather on and on about his
credentials. His words speak for themselves. If you want to conclude
why he is wrong about some things, please feel free to explain what
those things are and why you think he is wrong.

Hal

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:49:10 -0600

hal@nospam.com wrote:

> credentials. His words speak for themselves. If you want to conclude
> why he is wrong about some things, please feel free to explain what
> those things are and why you think he is wrong.

Thank you for your permission.

Now, if you want content, go check out the parts of this thread where
you didn't post.

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 09:39:41 -0800

h...@nospam.com wrote:

> >> it seems this is a man who has seen this first hand, but unlike
many
> >> of his group, actually has the courage to speak out about it.
> >
> >"Seems" is the operative word here. He was in the military but what
is
> >his combat record? I never saw that. Did you? If you haven't then
> >"seems" is all you've got to go on.
> >
> >Your better bet to argue this man's legitimacy is *NOT* his military
> >record but rather his *research*. Ignore his military record
entirely.
> >His *personal* experiences are not important to the research that he
> >attempts to show, the general trends of society which it is supposed
to
> >reflect, or the conclusions that he draws from them. If you want to
> >argue for it, argue the research, not the supposition that he's
"seen
> >the elephant" and is therefore an authority.
>
> How do you think this relates to his point about psychological
damage?

Are you *purposely* trying to misread the context? You said, "it seems
this is a man who has seen this first hand, but unlike many of his
group, actually has the courage to speak out about it." When you say
that it's clear that you are giving his arguments weight because of
some suposed military or combat experience while discounting RMA
participants arguments because of supposed lack of combat experience.
What I'm saying is that's irelevant! I wasn't saying a BLASTED THING
about "psychological damage."

Let me try this again. If you want to give weight to his conclusions,
do it on the basis of his research and the FACTS he presents, not on
some highly anecdotal suposed personal experiences.

What I'm saying is that you tried to sneak in a jibe at unspecified RMA
participants claiming that their arguments have no weight while giving
weight to this guy's arguments, all based on IRRELEVANT, or at best
"less relevant," personal experiences.

I'm saying "WHO CARES IF HE ACTUALLY SHOT ANYBODY?!?!" It doesn't
matter and he certainly isn't trying to base his conclusions upon
whether or not he's killed people.

> http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm
>
> Think there might be a causal link between mental illness from too
> much killing, to the numbers of homeless vets?

I think that there might be a causal link between stupidity and hypoxia
and that you should take the plastic bag off of your head and actually
address what I wrote instead of trying to veer of in some irelevant
direction.

(IH)

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:49:58 -0700

On 21 Jan 2005 09:39:41 -0800, lklawson@my-deja.com wrote:

>h...@nospam.com wrote:
>
>> >> it seems this is a man who has seen this first hand, but unlike
>many
>> >> of his group, actually has the courage to speak out about it.
>> >
>> >"Seems" is the operative word here. He was in the military but what
>is
>> >his combat record? I never saw that. Did you? If you haven't then
>> >"seems" is all you've got to go on.
>> >
>> >Your better bet to argue this man's legitimacy is *NOT* his military
>> >record but rather his *research*. Ignore his military record
>entirely.
>> >His *personal* experiences are not important to the research that he
>> >attempts to show, the general trends of society which it is supposed
>to
>> >reflect, or the conclusions that he draws from them. If you want to
>> >argue for it, argue the research, not the supposition that he's
>"seen
>> >the elephant" and is therefore an authority.
>>
>> How do you think this relates to his point about psychological
>damage?
>
>Are you *purposely* trying to misread the context? You said, "it seems
>this is a man who has seen this first hand, but unlike many of his
>group, actually has the courage to speak out about it." When you say
>that it's clear that you are giving his arguments weight because of
>some suposed military or combat experience while discounting RMA
>participants arguments because of supposed lack of combat experience.
>What I'm saying is that's irelevant! I wasn't saying a BLASTED THING
>about "psychological damage."
>
>Let me try this again. If you want to give weight to his conclusions,
>do it on the basis of his research and the FACTS he presents, not on
>some highly anecdotal suposed personal experiences.
>
>What I'm saying is that you tried to sneak in a jibe at unspecified RMA
>participants claiming that their arguments have no weight while giving
>weight to this guy's arguments, all based on IRRELEVANT, or at best
>"less relevant," personal experiences.
>
>I'm saying "WHO CARES IF HE ACTUALLY SHOT ANYBODY?!?!" It doesn't
>matter and he certainly isn't trying to base his conclusions upon
>whether or not he's killed people.

WTF you babbling about? I never said he shot anybody. He is a career
military man. Would probably be easily considered "an expert witness"
if testifying. I just thought he had some interesting points, and
threw them out in the ring for discussion. Why must you always get
your panties in a knot? Sheesh. Whatsamatter, you really think there
may be a point but just can't bring yourself to agree with anything I
say?

>
>
>> http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm
>>
>> Think there might be a causal link between mental illness from too
>> much killing, to the numbers of homeless vets?
>
>I think that there might be a causal link between stupidity and hypoxia
>and that you should take the plastic bag off of your head and actually
>address what I wrote instead of trying to veer of in some irelevant
>direction.

Get some help, little man.

Hal

>
>(IH)

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:54:15 -0600

hal@nospam.com wrote:

> military man. Would probably be easily considered "an expert witness"
> if testifying.

They make them available because the jury can't do the research (being
sequestered, and possibly not being smart enough).

> your panties in a knot? Sheesh. Whatsamatter, you really think there
> may be a point but just can't bring yourself to agree with anything I
> say?

He knows there's a point in there, and he's trying to get you to
actually talk about it.

Like the rest of us, who according to you border on monkeys, are
perfectly able to do.

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:22:37 -0700

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:54:15 -0600, Matthew Weigel
wrote:

>hal@nospam.com wrote:
>
>> military man. Would probably be easily considered "an expert witness"
>> if testifying.
>
>They make them available because the jury can't do the research (being
>sequestered, and possibly not being smart enough).
>
>> your panties in a knot? Sheesh. Whatsamatter, you really think there
>> may be a point but just can't bring yourself to agree with anything I
>> say?
>
>He knows there's a point in there, and he's trying to get you to
>actually talk about it.
>
>Like the rest of us, who according to you border on monkeys, are
>perfectly able to do.

monkeys?

Well, if there are any points any of your disagree with, you certainly
can try to refute them. Haven't seen Kirk try that yet.

Hal

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:28:10 -0600

hal@nospam.com wrote:

> monkeys?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to use a two-syllable word on you.

> Well, if there are any points any of your disagree with, you certainly
> can try to refute them. Haven't seen Kirk try that yet.

Precisely the extent to which he can prove that it creates any
predisposition, automatic or otherwise, is being discussed elsewhere in
this thread.

But I understand that you fear to tread where content rears its ugly head.

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 11:19:38 -0800

hal@nospam.com wrote:

> WTF you babbling about? I never said he shot anybody. He is a
career
> military man. Would probably be easily considered "an expert
witness"
> if testifying. I just thought he had some interesting points, and
> threw them out in the ring for discussion. Why must you always get
> your panties in a knot? Sheesh. Whatsamatter, you really think
there
> may be a point but just can't bring yourself to agree with anything I
> say?

What's the matter is, AS I'VE SAID 3 TIMES NOW, his military service is
IRELEVANT! Just admit that it was a tasteless, tactless, and irelevant
attempt to take a swipe at your enemies on RMA and then go on. Any
"expert witness" status afforded to him on this matter would be based
on his research and published papers/articles/whatnot in the area, NOT
ON HIS MILITARY SERVICE. And any viable disagreement with his
conclusions from RMA participants or anyone else would be directed at
his research, articles, etc. and NOT based on whether or not the person
disagreeing had "seen this first hand."

Whether or not I agree with *HIS* points is completely unrelated to
your posting the link or the fact that you are giving weight to his
arguments based on irelevant experience. YOU are not saying
*ANYTHING*. To date all you've said is that he has some "interesting
points" and posted some excerpts from his articles without actually
saying what points you think are "interesting" to say nothing of which
ones you actually agree with and support.

(IH)

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:33:49 -0700

On 21 Jan 2005 11:19:38 -0800, lklawson@my-deja.com wrote:

>hal@nospam.com wrote:
>
>> WTF you babbling about? I never said he shot anybody. He is a
>career
>> military man. Would probably be easily considered "an expert
>witness"
>> if testifying. I just thought he had some interesting points, and
>> threw them out in the ring for discussion. Why must you always get
>> your panties in a knot? Sheesh. Whatsamatter, you really think
>there
>> may be a point but just can't bring yourself to agree with anything I
>> say?
>
>What's the matter is, AS I'VE SAID 3 TIMES NOW, his military service is
>IRELEVANT! Just admit that it was a tasteless, tactless, and irelevant
>attempt to take a swipe at your enemies on RMA and then go on.

WTF?

>Any
>"expert witness" status afforded to him on this matter would be based
>on his research and published papers/articles/whatnot in the area, NOT
>ON HIS MILITARY SERVICE.

Did you even read his bio and vitae? All clearly linked right off the
home page.

But of course you couldn't even find the site map.

> And any viable disagreement with his
>conclusions from RMA participants or anyone else would be directed at
>his research, articles, etc. and NOT based on whether or not the person
>disagreeing had "seen this first hand."

That was just a comment, not meant to be conclusive or anything. I
thought his credentials were well posted and referenced for all to
see. Sorry if you missed them.

>
>Whether or not I agree with *HIS* points is completely unrelated to
>your posting the link or the fact that you are giving weight to his
>arguments based on irelevant experience. YOU are not saying
>*ANYTHING*. To date all you've said is that he has some "interesting
>points" and posted some excerpts from his articles without actually
>saying what points you think are "interesting" to say nothing of which
>ones you actually agree with and support.

Well golly gee, wouldn't you think the ones I posted were them?

Hal

>
>(IH)

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 11:46:03 -0800

h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:54:15 -0600, Matthew Weigel

> Well, if there are any points any of your disagree with, you
certainly
> can try to refute them. Haven't seen Kirk try that yet.

You haven't seen me try to refute any of your points because you
haven't *posted* any on this topic yet. You haven't seen me try to
refute any of *Grossman's* points because I haven't *tried* to. I
*have*, however spend a fair number of electrons explaining and
clarifying some of Grossman's points. :P

(IH)

From:	Shuurai
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 15:03:34 -0800

> > Instead, it removes an impediment, if you have the motivation,
> > to acting on it.
>
> Sorta but different. He claims that FPS's set up an "automatic
> response" as well as desensitizing the gamer to violence and
> gore which subsumes the supposed natural disinclination to kill.
> ...A Double Barreled effect! As far as the automatic response
> goes, it's the same sort of automatic response that a boxer has
> when he sees some guy lower his hands a bit too much and expose
> the jaw. Wham! Punch to the jaw. Didn't have to think about
> it, just *did* it.

I play Counter Strike online... I suppose that if I was running
around town with an assault rifle and suddenly a guy in a ski mask
and camos, also holding an assault rifle, and the word "Enemy" was
floating in front of him in big red letters I might open fire
automatically.

The different between a boxer and a gamer is that the boxer is
putting himself in a situation where his training is applicable.
If a kid runs into school with a gun and shoots somebody, the
first question should not be "gee did the game make him more
likely to overcome his reservations about killing, or did it
make his response automatic?" it should be "why in the hell did
this kid have a gun in school?" or "why did this kid feel a need
to harm himself or others?"

I don't care how often a kid plays a game, there is nothing at
all "automatic" about taking a gun somewhere and then using it.
The kids at Columbine PLANNED their attack in great detail - that
isn't an automatic response to anything. It's not something you
do in the game.

The idea here seems to be that these kids would have been more
likely to hesitate or even back down at the moment of actually
killing someone, if not for the video games. I say bullshit.
Considering the plan these kids put together, the effort put
into selecting the targets, collecting the weapons... it's not
something anyone just does because they play Doom.

> > Well, actually, yes on 2 out of 3 (according to the theory).
> > There is arguably a cognitive difference in seeing and
> > reading about it.
>
> I've often wondered about how stories and fables would be
> exempted from the desensitization theory. I mean, when's the
> last time you took a look at some of the fables and nusery rhymes?
> They can get pretty grusome!

Most of them were lessons of some kind; fear was used to get
the point across.

> > As a similar example, Trav has claimed a few times (I haven't
> > verified the claims, but that's beside the point) that higher
> > traffic speed don't, statistically, cause more accidents;
> > they do, however, make more accidents fatal. Thus, restricting
> > traffic speeds can have a positive impact on car accident
> > fatalities.
>
> That and more. He claims (perhaps rightly so, I'm not sure)
> that the FPS's create an operand conditioning which makes
> "shoot to kill" responses automatic. Something you just "do"
> without thinking, even if, in some case, you didn't really
> *want* to do that (he gives at least one example that I can
> recall).

And that's where I think he crosses the line from good point
to bullshit. I've yet to see any evidence offered by anyone
that these games change someone who wouldn't kill to someone
who would kill, much less evidence that they could make the
response so automatic that it's not even a choice anymore.

You're a martial artist... if you're holding a stick and
someone else picks one up and makes a play move at you, are
you going to take their head off on automatic?

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:21:18 -0600

Shuurai wrote:

> The idea here seems to be that these kids would have been more
> likely to hesitate or even back down at the moment of actually
> killing someone, if not for the video games. I say bullshit.
> Considering the plan these kids put together, the effort put
> into selecting the targets, collecting the weapons...

How is that different from soldiers going through training, shipping off
to a foreign country, getting in the trench, and only then - when their
was someone from the opposing side there - realizing they couldn't pull
the trigger?

From:	Shuurai
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 14:44:10 -0800

Matthew Weigel wrote:
> Shuurai wrote:
>
> >>The point is, though, that a major impediment to doing that -
> >>low-level psychological restraints - may be mitigated by the games.
> >
> >
> > I've seen very little evidence to indicate that it translates into
> > anything in the real world. How many examples do we have of real-
> > life killings (or even attacks) that have been directly influenced
> > by gaming?
>
> Well, by the theory... gaming doesn't motivate the killings the
> same way listening to Ozzy Osbourne makes you want to worship
> the devil, kill people, and do bad reality television. ;-)

I've been listening to Ozzy for decades, and I've never wanted to
worship the devil, kill people, or do bad reality television.

> Instead, it removes an impediment, if you have the motivation,
> to acting on it.

Yeah, right... having a weapon removes an impediment to killing
people - do you blame the weapon or the killer? Even if you
prove that video games remove an impediment, that's all it ever
was - an impediment.

Instead of thinking in terms of making sure our kids are impeded
in some manner from killing, we ought to try and make an environment
for them where killing people isn't an option they're looking at
in the first place.

> >>Of course, that's *all* it is, but...
> >
> >
> > If true, the same applies to movies, television, and hell even
> > books that describe killing.
>
> Well, actually, yes on 2 out of 3 (according to the theory).
> There is arguably a cognitive difference in seeing and reading
> about it.

The author of the book "Hitman" was charged with aiding a in a
murder because his book taught methods of killing and also
talked about how to overcome ones natural resistance to the act.

> > Maybe I'm old fashioned by I'd prefer to blame
> > the guy that *does* the crime before I go blaming someone else.
>
> It's not blame, in the normal sense.

No, not in the normal sense.

> violent video games -/> serial killer, but
> violent video games AND motivation to kill -> serial killer.

I'd place a lot more weight on "motivation" than "video games".

> As a similar example, Trav has claimed a few times (I haven't
> verified the claims, but that's beside the point) that higher
> traffic speeds don't, statistically, cause more accidents; they
> do, however, make more accidents fatal. Thus, restricting
> traffic speeds can have a positive impact on car accident fatalities.

True... but so can better training. The autobaun has much faster
speeds than US highways, but less fatal accidents.

> (If Trav's claim is supported by the evidence, though, I don't think
> Grossman's are as supported in terms of societal impact)

I think Grossman has some good points, he's just running too far
with them.

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:33:28 -0600

Shuurai wrote:

>>Well, by the theory... gaming doesn't motivate the killings the
>>same way listening to Ozzy Osbourne makes you want to worship
>>the devil, kill people, and do bad reality television. ;-)
>
>
> I've been listening to Ozzy for decades, and I've never wanted to
> worship the devil, kill people, or do bad reality television.

I dunno... bad reality television has started to appeal to me lately,
after just a bit over a decade of Ozzy.

>>Instead, it removes an impediment, if you have the motivation,
>>to acting on it.
>
> Yeah, right... having a weapon removes an impediment to killing
> people - do you blame the weapon or the killer?

What makes you think I'm talking about blame?

After saying that I'm not talking about blame?

> Even if you
> prove that video games remove an impediment, that's all it ever
> was - an impediment.

The proof is pretty strong that there *is* such an impediment.

The proof is pretty strong that there are known ways to remove that
impediment.

The proof is pretty strong that, for whatever reason, FPS's mirror those
methods in some respects.

But yes, it's still just an impediment. I haven't said anything else.

>>>>Of course, that's *all* it is, but...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See?

>>>If true, the same applies to movies, television, and hell even
>>>books that describe killing.
>>
>>Well, actually, yes on 2 out of 3 (according to the theory).
>>There is arguably a cognitive difference in seeing and reading
>>about it.
>
> The author of the book "Hitman" was charged with aiding a in a
> murder because his book taught methods of killing and also
> talked about how to overcome ones natural resistance to the act.

Describing methods is not the same as *being* a method.

By your logic, the military could have just told their trainees the
methods that were going to be used to get them to overcome the
impediment, and that would have done the job.

> I'd place a lot more weight on "motivation" than "video games".

I'd place about 70% of the weight on "methods that remove the impediment
to killing."

You know; statistically.

>>do, however, make more accidents fatal. Thus, restricting
>>traffic speeds can have a positive impact on car accident fatalities.
>
> True... but so can better training.

Correct. In fact, both can. Very good drivers driving 25mph will only
very, very rarely be involved in fatal car accidents.

> I think Grossman has some good points, he's just running too far
> with them.

And in-between statements that he makes some good points, you ignore them.

You repeat back to me what I've told you... and try to refute my points
thereby. Please stop.

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	20 Jan 2005 13:38:21 -0800

h...@nospam.com wrote:

> I don't mind if someone is a Christian if he raises valid points.
> That would be your characterization.

You've always stated that you're opposed to the proselizing and "public
intrusiveness" that this guy is advocating.

(IH)

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 10:06:45 -0800

Shuurai wrote:
> > I don't remember him using that term exactly (though he may
> > have). In his article on the subject on the web site he certainly
> > doesn't use that term. In his article he has two points about
> > First Person Shooter (FPS) games. First, that they're effective
> > physiological and psychological trainers for live shoot encounters
> > and that similar (often identical) simulations are used for LEO
> > and Military training.
>
> To some degree, yes - especially the newer ones where the people
> really *do* look like people.

Or Castle Wolfenstien 3D. Something like 15 years old or some such.
Photo-realism is not required to create the operand conditioning.
Military/LEO targets are not typically photo-realistic. They are often
nothing more then silhouette targets. But it still works.

> But all that being said, if you go out and shoot somebody for real
> because you see it in a game (or a movie, or hear it on a record)
> the problem still lies with you. As one comedian once put it, if
> your child does anything because Ozzy Osbourne said so, you've
> failed in your role as a parent. The same applies to gaming.
> If your kid isn't capable of knowing the difference between shooting
> someone in Counter-Strike vs. shooting someone on the street, then
> your kid should't be *playing* Counter-Strike until he matures a
> little more.

Seems cold comfort to the guy who denies his child violent video games
or gore-fest movies only to have his classmate off him because *that*
kid's parents weren't doing their job.

Which is one point that the author was trying to make.

> > And second, that these FPS games, as simulators, lack the buffering
> > techniques used to teach "appropriate use of force" that LEO and
> > Military organizations use.
>
> There are a few that actually allow (and in some cases reward) the
> use of non-lethal methods.

I had one on my Comodore 64 that had the same basic premise.

> > And, to be perfectly honest I've seen Point Shooting (a Combat
> > Firearms technique/skill/school-of-thought) advocates agree that
> > FPS games do, in fact, teach skills similar to Point Shooting
> > and are quite transferable to real life.
>
> Oh, heck yeah. Especially in terms of hand-eye coordination and
> target recognition. The ability to recognize friend or foe
> very quickly is an important skill in some of these games.
Sure thing.

From:	hcannon18
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:58:15 -0600

wrote in message
news:hdkvu0ln3ptk08e12lnp7iocd2h381jsff@4ax.com...
> This is from the author of Killology. Anyone ever heard of Dave
> Grossman or any of these training series he has authored?
>

Yeah he wrote a book entitled " On Killing - The Psychological Cost of
Learning to Kill in War and Society." LTC Grossamn is a former army ranger
and paratrooper. I did not read the book. But from the cover I doubt I would
agree with all he says anyway.
Visit a library on bookstore occasionally. You may learn something; but I
doubt it.

From:	Shuurai
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	20 Jan 2005 15:16:23 -0800

> >What I find really interesting about this is that Hal is the
> >one posting it. Same guy who gets his panties in a bunch any
> >time anything about combat is discussed.
>
> No, rather, only stupid people talking about combat when they
> clearly don't have a clue.

That's right, Hal... everyone but you is clueless. You're
pretty darned amazing.

> You know, like some idiot claiming they can make an accurate
> prediction about which way someone is going to move.

For the umpteenth time, dumbass, it's not a "prediction". It's
learning to read body movement and correlating that with action.
Several good examples were provided, but you were too busy
playing the role of asshole to notice.

And see, that is one of your biggest problems... you are so
intent on disputing people that you completely miss the point
of what they're actually saying. It makes you look like a
complete clown. Not that I'm complaining - it's really the only
thing that makes you interesting.

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:31:07 -0700

On 20 Jan 2005 15:16:23 -0800, "Shuurai"
wrote:

>
>> >What I find really interesting about this is that Hal is the
>> >one posting it. Same guy who gets his panties in a bunch any
>> >time anything about combat is discussed.
>>
>> No, rather, only stupid people talking about combat when they
>> clearly don't have a clue.
>
>That's right, Hal... everyone but you is clueless. You're
>pretty darned amazing.
>
>> You know, like some idiot claiming they can make an accurate
>> prediction about which way someone is going to move.
>
>For the umpteenth time, dumbass, it's not a "prediction". It's
>learning to read body movement and correlating that with action.

And there is none. None reliable anyway.

>Several good examples were provided, but you were too busy
>playing the role of asshole to notice.

Horseshit. You had a ridiculous contention and your argument was
absurd and failing.

>
>And see, that is one of your biggest problems... you are so
>intent on disputing people that you completely miss the point
>of what they're actually saying.

No, I got the point. What you were saying was horseshit.

> It makes you look like a
>complete clown. Not that I'm complaining - it's really the only
>thing that makes you interesting.

At least I am interesting.

Hal

From:	calvinthecat at ocsnet.net
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 11:53:22 -0800

From:	Shuurai
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	20 Jan 2005 20:31:43 -0800

> >> Sorry, you are correct, he used "combat", not weapons.
> >> Since most contention has been over weapons use in
> >> particular, I figured that was his objection. As I've never
> >> taken any particular stance against "combat".
> >
> >Nah, just anything that might be remotely *effective* in
> >combat...
>
> Oh, yea, right trying to "predict" which way someone is going
> to dodge.

Again, you obvious weren't paying attention. It's not about
predicting anything.

> And let's not forget the "coordinated attack" with your
> buddies training.

Training used by police officers, bouncers, soldiers,
and bodyguards... but it's useless because the help desk
guy from backwater Montana says so, based on his years of
experience doing Mall-Kwon-Do.

> let's see, what other absurd ideas have you had lately?
> I can't remember at the moment.

Well, I had this idea that you might be capable of carrying
on an intelligent conversation... turned out to be pretty
absurd.

> What am I missing?

A brain? Human emotion? Decency? Honor? A clue?

> >Damn near every argument you have ever offered when it comes to
> >weapons shows that you have no knowledge of the subject.
>
> I know more about weapons than you apparently.

Apparantly how? Because you think so?

> I am also smart enought to know that 99.9999% of the time I'm
> not going to need one, and if I ever did have to use one,
> I've already lost.

Does everything you know come from motivational posters?

> You probably don't even understand what that means, do you?

It means that you are an utterly clueless jackass who doesn't
know the first thing about self-defense.

From:	calvinthecat at ocsnet.net
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	20 Jan 2005 16:59:36 -0800

h...@nospam.com wrote:

> >For the umpteenth time, dumbass, it's not a "prediction". It's
> >learning to read body movement and correlating that with action.
>
> And there is none. None reliable anyway.

Yes the entire sport of boxing is a fake. It's all part of a vast
conspiracy to fool people into thinking that the skill of reading
someone's body movement actually exists yet Hal is the only one here
smart enough to see through it. Hal, tell us how they keep a lid on
the truth when the boxing lie has been around for so long? Does it
seem fair that the heavyweight pro-boxing champs get paid so much to
fake a skill that does not exist? Are all the conspirators going to
all this effort because they hate Tae Kwon Do?

> >Several good examples were provided, but you were too busy
> >playing the role of asshole to notice.
>
> Horseshit. You had a ridiculous contention and your argument was
> absurd and failing.

LOL you wish! When you can't argue your way out of a paper bag you
don't get to lie about it after the fact.

> >And see, that is one of your biggest problems... you are so
> >intent on disputing people that you completely miss the point
> >of what they're actually saying.
>
> No, I got the point.
The point was beyond your ability to grasp.

From:	Shuurai
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	20 Jan 2005 10:10:17 -0800

lklaw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> h...@nospam.com wrote:
>
> > From him, you'll learn how the body responds to lethal
> > combat, what happens to your blood flow, your muscles,
> > your judgment, memory, vision, and hearing when
> > someone is trying to kill you.
> >
> > You'll learn how to keep going even if you're shot, and
> > how to prepare your mind for survival instead of defeat.
>
> ...
>
> > Six-Tape Series:
> > 1. The Hidden Truth About Lethal Combat
> > 2. How the Body Responds to Combat, Part 1
> > 3. How the Body Responds to Combat, Part 2
>
> OK, yeah. As I suspected. This is all common knowledge that
> can be grepped from most any Self Defense gun 'zine and who
> know's how many places online.
>
> Still, good stuff to consider and, though common knowledge in
> the "gun culture" is not often discussed by most Martial
> Artists. It's such a good idea that it's already on my list
> of WOTTs (as well as some related topics).

What I find really interesting about this is that Hal is the
one posting it. Same guy who gets his panties in a bunch any
time anything about combat is discussed.

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:37:30 -0700

On 20 Jan 2005 10:10:17 -0800, "Shuurai"
wrote:

>
>lklaw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> h...@nospam.com wrote:
>>
>> > From him, you'll learn how the body responds to lethal
>> > combat, what happens to your blood flow, your muscles,
>> > your judgment, memory, vision, and hearing when
>> > someone is trying to kill you.
>> >
>> > You'll learn how to keep going even if you're shot, and
>> > how to prepare your mind for survival instead of defeat.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Six-Tape Series:
>> > 1. The Hidden Truth About Lethal Combat
>> > 2. How the Body Responds to Combat, Part 1
>> > 3. How the Body Responds to Combat, Part 2
>>
>> OK, yeah. As I suspected. This is all common knowledge that
>> can be grepped from most any Self Defense gun 'zine and who
>> know's how many places online.
>>
>> Still, good stuff to consider and, though common knowledge in
>> the "gun culture" is not often discussed by most Martial
>> Artists. It's such a good idea that it's already on my list
>> of WOTTs (as well as some related topics).
>
>What I find really interesting about this is that Hal is the
>one posting it. Same guy who gets his panties in a bunch any
>time anything about combat is discussed.

No, rather, only stupid people talking about combat when they clearly
don't have a clue.

You know, like some idiot claiming they can make an accurate
prediction about which way someone is going to move. Really stupid
shit like that.

Hal

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:05:55 -0600

hal@nospam.com wrote:

> You know, like some idiot claiming they can make an accurate
> prediction about which way someone is going to move.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I was wondering if you could actually *discuss* the "many very
interesting points raised," or if you'd simply fall back on acting like
somehow what was written supported some completely unrelated, retarded
claim you've made.
--
Matthew Weigel

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:15:29 -0700

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:05:55 -0600, Matthew Weigel
wrote:

>hal@nospam.com wrote:
>
>> You know, like some idiot claiming they can make an accurate
>> prediction about which way someone is going to move.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
>I was wondering if you could actually *discuss* the "many very
>interesting points raised," or if you'd simply fall back on acting like
>somehow what was written supported some completely unrelated, retarded
>claim you've made.

I never said that. Nothing in these articles has anything to do with
past controversial topics. My above response was only a come-back to
shruurai slam about weapons use.

Hal

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:42:43 -0600

hal@nospam.com wrote:

> I never said that. Nothing in these articles has anything to do with
> past controversial topics. My above response was only a come-back to
> shruurai slam about weapons use.

About "weapons use"?

Shuurai has two posts in the two threads you started about this site...
not a whisper about weapons in either one. Perhaps you could come up
with a better reason?
--
Matthew Weigel

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:59:30 -0700

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:42:43 -0600, Matthew Weigel
wrote:

>hal@nospam.com wrote:
>
>> I never said that. Nothing in these articles has anything to do with
>> past controversial topics. My above response was only a come-back to
>> shruurai slam about weapons use.
>
>About "weapons use"?
>
>Shuurai has two posts in the two threads you started about this site...
>not a whisper about weapons in either one. Perhaps you could come up
>with a better reason?

Sorry, you are correct, he used "combat", not weapons. Since most
contention has been over weapons use in particular, I figured that was
his objection. As I've never taken any particular stance against
"combat".

Hal

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	20 Jan 2005 11:18:57 -0800

Matthew Weigel wrote:
> hal@nospam.com wrote:
>
> > You know, like some idiot claiming they can make an accurate
> > prediction about which way someone is going to move.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> I was wondering if you could actually *discuss* the "many very
> interesting points raised," or if you'd simply fall back on acting
like
> somehow what was written supported some completely unrelated,
retarded
> claim you've made.
> --
> Matthew Weigel

I was wondering if hal knew that this guy is a self-avowed "Christian"
and recomends Church, Fellowship, Christian Youth Groups, and the like.
Peace favor your sword (IH)

From:	hal at nospam.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:09:03 -0700

On 20 Jan 2005 11:18:57 -0800, lklawson@my-deja.com wrote:

>
>Matthew Weigel wrote:
>> hal@nospam.com wrote:
>>
>> > You know, like some idiot claiming they can make an accurate
>> > prediction about which way someone is going to move.
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>
>> I was wondering if you could actually *discuss* the "many very
>> interesting points raised," or if you'd simply fall back on acting
>like
>> somehow what was written supported some completely unrelated,
>retarded
>> claim you've made.
>> --
>> Matthew Weigel
>
>I was wondering if hal knew that this guy is a self-avowed "Christian"
>and recomends Church, Fellowship, Christian Youth Groups, and the like.
>Peace favor your sword (IH)

I don't mind if someone is a Christian if he raises valid points.
That would be your characterization.

Hal

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:13:20 -0600

lklawson@my-deja.com wrote:

> I was wondering if hal knew that this guy is a self-avowed "Christian"
> and recomends Church, Fellowship, Christian Youth Groups, and the like.

I think Hal prefers that to training in martial arts ;-)

From:	lklawson at my-deja.com
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
Date:	21 Jan 2005 10:30:20 -0800

Matthew Weigel wrote:
> Shuurai wrote:
>
> >>The point is, though, that a major impediment to doing that -
> >>low-level psychological restraints - may be mitigated by the games.
> >
> >
> > I've seen very little evidence to indicate that it translates into
> > anything in the real world. How many examples do we have of real-
> > life killings (or even attacks) that have been directly influenced
> > by gaming?
>
> Well, by the theory... gaming doesn't motivate the killings the same
way
> listening to Ozzy Osbourne makes you want to worship the devil, kill
> people, and do bad reality television. ;-)
>
> Instead, it removes an impediment, if you have the motivation, to
acting
> on it.

Sorta but different. He claims that FPS's set up an "automatic
response" as well as desensitizing the gamer to violence and gore which
subsumes the supposed natural disinclination to kill. ...A Double
Barreled effect! As far as the automatic response goes, it's the same
sort of automatic response that a boxer has when he sees some guy lower
his hands a bit too much and expose the jaw. Wham! Punch to the jaw.
Didn't have to think about it, just *did* it.

> >>Of course, that's *all* it is, but...
> >
> >
> > If true, the same applies to movies, television, and hell even
books
> > that describe killing.
>
> Well, actually, yes on 2 out of 3 (according to the theory). There
is
> arguably a cognitive difference in seeing and reading about it.

I've often wondered about how stories and fables would be exempted from
the desensitization theory. I mean, when's the last time you took a
look at some of the fables and nusery rhymes? They can get pretty
grusome!

> > Maybe I'm old fashioned by I'd prefer to blame
> > the guy that *does* the crime before I go blaming someone else.
>
> It's not blame, in the normal sense.
>
> violent video games -/> serial killer, but
> violent video games AND motivation to kill -> serial killer.
>
> As a similar example, Trav has claimed a few times (I haven't
verified
> the claims, but that's beside the point) that higher traffic speeds
> don't, statistically, cause more accidents; they do, however, make
more
> accidents fatal. Thus, restricting traffic speeds can have a
positive
> impact on car accident fatalities.

That and more. He claims (perhaps rightly so, I'm not sure) that the
FPS's create an operand conditioning which makes "shoot to kill"
responses automatic. Something you just "do" without thinking, even
if, in some case, you didn't really *want* to do that (he gives at
least one example that I can recall).

Peace favor your sword (IH)

From:	Matthew Weigel
Subject:	Re: The Bulletproof Mind
<