Same thing with you and Mochizuki. You admitted there were holes in your knowledge, so there are three possibilites:
1) The holes cannot be taught. Not true: Rob can teach the holes.
2) Mochizuki chose not to teach you the holes. Confirms known facts about Asian teaching methodology.
3) Mochizuki thought he taught you the holes, but was too dumb to see he didn't. Impossible: you do not get that kind of skill without being able to recognize them in someone els.
Sorry, but there are a lot more than three possible explanations. Particularly when you consider that I don't study directly under him, and have only seen him on 3 separate occasions. The first two times I spoke only a smidgen of Japanese, the last time (the time in question) was the only time when I both knew the basics of the kata in question and spoke *some* Japanese, barely enough to mostly get by and I was the person with the best English to Japanese skills. We worked on the kata (with 4 other people from my dojo) for 20 minutes total. Now, this is all information that was not available to Mike when he made his comments. His comments, like many others, were made with huge assumptions, and constitute faulty logic. This is not a case of reductio ad absurdum, this is a case of being rude and jumping to conclusions. Unless Mike feels that anyone who could not communicate detailed intricate internal mechanics to someone else in 20 minutes through pantomime should be considered "dumb." Do you feel that's a reasonable expectation? No, for something to really imply something else, the way Mike is using the word, it must be the *only* logical explanation, not a possible explanation of many. If I say that I am holding less than 10 items in my hand, I do not imply that I am holding 2 cookies, that is an assumption, and I would be foolish to jump ahead that far even though, logically I *could* have two cookies in my hand, given what I said. It is far from the *only* logical conclusion that one could come to.