Well that's reassuring.
So help me out here. Allowing that it isn't what you meant- what did
I guess I am still struggling with the phrasing. What do you see in what we or I do as all "waza related"? in your original quote? Can you see how Its confusing?
Well, for a start, there was a context to the first quote (which you shortened anyway), which you did not include.
The entire sentence goes:
"In terms of training I see aikido as a much more general 'waza-related' art. I would include in waza everything being done by Akuzawa Sensei, Ushiro Kenji Sensei, Dan Harden and Mike Sigman, insofar as it directly relates to aikido. It is no longer 'sensei' related, at least for me."
The context was a discussion with George Ledyard on what I called 'orthodox Aikikai ideology', especially orthodox Aikikai ideology that finds its expression in the imitation of some particular Aikikai shihan. So, the training I aim at is 'much more generally "waza-related"', in the sense that it includes more than what is espoused by the orthodox ideology (which is that training consists exclusively in techniques, as shown in the current Aikikai textbooks).
As I stated, I think there is a problem of vocabulary. For example, Kenji Ushiro has a complex progression from kata (型), through to kata (形), involving certain types of waza (技). Again, Ueshiba stated that there were no waza in his art, but gives 166 of them in Budo Renshu. Given that waza has a wider meaning than 'techniques', I would include, for example, the training in body skills that Akuzawa Sensei does.
If you still insist that what you are doing is not waza, that's fine by me. My mistake.