I'll be willing to betcha over which methods offers the greater potential for control over another humans violent actions without causing harm.
Dan, I was waiting for a reply to my response, but I realized you probably assumed it was a joke -- since that was the note on which I entered the conversation.
My more serious question concerns the extent to which you mean 'without causing harm'. I understand what you mean as a somewhat rhetorical expression -- the more so if the emphasis is on the 'potential'. I probably agree that the methods you use have 'greater potential' for that outcome than many highly technique-oriented approaches. That having been said, I don't actually know what you do.
What I wanted to know is: do you, personally, feel that you can take 'control over other humans violent actions without causing harm'? I can accomplish this with my two-year-old, as long as he is not being *too* violent (so far so good), but I wouldn't nearly trust myself to do so with a trained adult. If you *can* do that, then that is very impressive. If you just hold it up as an ideal, I understand that too. Many people hold it up as an ideal, so I am just trying to understand the extent to which you are saying you can actually accomplish it. My general feeling from much of what you have written is that you are saying you can. Please accept my apology if I have misunderstood. Is that what you were proposing we bet about?