*sigh* I'm trying to discuss the subject matter and now I get, Let's argue word definitions. Is that really the best argument you want to make about the thread subject?
There is no argument for me to want over word definition.
Look at the
thread. Now look at the
post at the beginning. In that sentence "the post
at the beginning" refers to one of many posts
. "Principle" does not mean "equal". 2 + 2 is not the principle
of 4. It's not rocket science. Don't pretend this is something that even could be argued.
And you are not trying to discuss anything. You started with two conclusions and have told us how they are right over and over without any evidence.
1. You were wrong about Aikido not having influence from other arts. One example of evidence I provided was from was Stanley Pranin - you have done nothing to refute it and asked no questions about it. Were you even interested in discussing this?
2. You were wrong about David Alexander saying Awase = Aiki and your attempt to redefine the English language to cover your mistake isn't going to hide it. Nor is repeating the abstract example of the train and just saying it's modern aikido. Instead of just telling us it isn't Aiki, you could ask questions and have people give all kinds of testimony from actually training in Iwama. Then, you could compare notes, and reach the conclusion at the end (maybe even the same one - only informed).
Before you made your original post, you could have PMed Alexander Sensei and asked him what he meant by awase. Your original post could have been "I'm interested to know what the concept of awase is in Iwama? How does it feature in actual practice? I read that Aikido was influenced by arts other than Daito Ryu. Could anyone give me some examples of how... etc" You have great resources at your fingertips to find out what you want to know.
Are you interested in giving this style of debate a try?