A little off topic I know and it risks turing into a flame fest BUT! Hendry how do you know this? What is your source?
True, and AFAIK, there is no rule that states that art specific people have to stay in their given art specific area. A legit question, sure no issue with that, but its the 'this isn't going to work, blah, blah' stuff that gets old. Oh well.
I can imagine that the job of a mod is certainly no easy task. IMHO, you folks here do a fine job. Seems to me though, that at least in this thread, and after reviewing the TOS, the trolling/inciting conflict rule is constantly broken. My appologies for what can be considered an off topic post and I'm not challenging your TOS but it just seems to me anyway, that that rule is constantly broken.
You're correct. That single rule causes more headaches than any other and it's generally the one that makes the job of modding this place the most difficult. If it were a forum for teenagers, in the middle of puberty, it would be more understandable, but given the average age of the usual suspects is well above that it does make me wonder sometimes. Anyway, before this gets any further out of hand, can we drift back to the topic, which was, IIRC, the video clip? ty.
Looks like we're talking apples vs. oranges here. I do the more high speed/low drag stuff. This article from the San Francisco Chronicle provides a better sense of what I'm talking about: www.itg4.com/News/Anti_assassin_Academy.aspx At the time it was published ITG was still the training division of The Steele Foundation, where I was a Senior Manager at the time. ITG has since spun off and become a separate company. In addition to training and consulting, it also takes on operational projects. For example, I spent the entire month of July with "Jake the Snake" as my team leader, as a member of a hand-picked 16-man team protecting corporate executives during a labor dispute with a union having a history of violent action. The prospect of violence didn't bother me, but having one of my instructors as my boss was nerve-wracking because I knew how minutely everything was being scrutinized and evaluated. It was right up there with being called up to demonstrate by Hatsumi sensei during a Tai Kai or Daikomyosai. Jake has since called me for further work, so I guess I could have done worse. Ironically, BTW, I'm making about $20K/year more as a protective services agent than I did as a salaried manager with Steele.
Dale I not trying antogonizing here, but as a Security Specialist who you be willing to take a bullet for a CEO. My experience of the CEO I have worked around is that I could understand why sometimes someone might want to do them harm or even kill them. Some were good men but many were as ruthless as they come. I remember once asking one of our CEO's what he had done that made him feel he needed a bulletproof bathroom in his office suite. Probably not the smartest thing to ask such a person but I think people should consider these things. On the other hand if someone comes to me whether friend or foe, sinner or saint so to speak I am obliged professionally to treat anything that is life threatening, so perhaps it the same for you.
Is that type of work worth it? It sounds interesting, but at the same time it seems kind of mind blowingly dull. How many time would you have to protect or check a bathroom for some client worse yet a client with gas. . Also god forbid you had to use your weapons, what about the legal ramifications and the headaches you would receive even if you were in the right.
Taken in the same spirit. I would, though obviously I'd try to prevent either of us from taking one. But I hear ya. I once had a 9-month nightmare running the detail for a CEO and his family. Watching the family interactions there is no doubt they thought of themselves as fundamentally good people, but. . .on second thought, I don't think I'd better go there. But I still would have protected their lives with my own, and not just as a matter of personal discipline, professional pride, etc. It's because as a "warrior" as I myself understand the term. . .or as a budoka, if someone prefers that one. . . my "mission" is to protect life. Life is the ultimate, universal or "core" human value because without it nothing else -- religious belief, love, whatever -- is possible. And the one thing we human beings share that makes all people equal, in all times/places/cultures, is that we all value our own lives and the lives of those we love. In that sense, we all have equal "intrinsic worth", however much we may deplore someone else's cultural traits or behavior. . .or however necessary it may be to stop someone from engaging in "anti-life" behavior in exigent circumstances. So, as long as my protectee isn't doing anything illegal which could get ME in trouble for "aiding and abetting", I really don't have to "like" him or her in order to be able to do my job. One of the things I find really interesting about EP work is that, like the Bujinkan, it comprises both "ninja" and "samurai" elements when in a responsive mode. (Meaning that all the intelligence gathering, threat analysis, planning to avoid or prevent Bad Things, etc. which would be common to both elements have failed and the fewmets have hit the windmill anyway.) When it comes to a AOP situation (Attack On Principal), your job is not to fight off and subdue the Bad Guys. It's to get the paycheck. . .excuse me, of course I meant "Principal". . .off the X and keep him/her alive and safe. You may have to hurt or kill people in the process, but you're not doing it "to" hurt or kill them, it's something that happens on the way to accomplishing your mission; and once the principal is clear, you terminate the engagement and withdraw if that's possible. On the "samurai" side, the "arm's reach" doctrine is that the agent closest to the presenting threat engages it while the rest of the team covers and evacuates the principal. In a self-defense or law enforcement tactical scenario, normally you'd want to reach a position of relative safety ("cover" in the case of situations involving firearms) and tactical advantage before doing anything else. However, if you're the sorry-**** agent whose position in the protective formation when the Bad Thing goes down dictates that you're the one to engage the threat while everyone else scarpers off with the paycheck, well. . .You ARE the "cover" until the principal is off the X. Or until you're incapacitated or dead, whichever comes first. By the time you get into that sort of a position of power and influence, no matter how fine and upstanding a person you actually are and how ethical your actions have been, there WILL BE people who for various reasons are seriously honked off at you. Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged gives some good examples of what I mean. Pretty much, yes. "Love the sinner while condemning the sin" I suppose; or put another way, in my case it's "Recognize the offender's essential equality and humanity but stop the anti-life behavior". The part of that (for me) which may be hard for a lot of people to swallow is that I see this as an obligation to also protect (or spare) even an attacker's life to the extent that it is feasible to do so. It may not always be possible: In the moment, it may just be absolutely necessary to just put them down like a rabid dog. But in that event, it should also be done quickly, cleanly, professionally, and without prolonged suffering where possible.
I just find it amazing that certain people are always so fast to have tons of tales, yet no video. They are also considered experts, yet will never test these skills in an alive fashion. I once knew this guy, a true master mechanic. An expert on cars, he loved street racing cars. Had so many stories of his cars, and the cars of friends he worked on beating all the other cars. He learned from his father, a master mechanic himself. Yet I never saw him actually race any of his cars, or saw any car he worked on race either. It really makes you wonder.........
Video? What is the 'video' you speak of? Not everyone carries a camera with them all the time. Not everyone competes, where you would expect someone to be filming. However, some people's jobs do take them into areas where their skills and training make a life or death difference and having a camera present would present a security risk or invasion of privacy issue. While video can be nice and lend a small amount of credibility to someone's claims. It is not and never will be the ulitmate proof. As for claiming to be an expert or testing themself in an alive fashion, I'll leave it to the subject of your derision to decide if he wants to answer that one.
Are you a Christian? Can you show me a video of any of the major players? Come on, there are heaps of them. Just one Youtube clip of Judas. Please.
Muppet. Name calling isn't going to change anything... Though it is interesting that people believe in something that can't be proven because they want to. And it is interesting that people don't believe in something that can be proven because it's easier. Be whatever as it may it is stupid to believe in something only when seen on youtube.
Your lack of intelligence is showing. I did not call you a name. A strawman is not a name, it's a debate technique. Let me educate you: 'A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.' Again, where is ANY proof of these 'experts' using their skills succesfully in an alive setting?
