Can you be more specific about who is being dishonest or exaggerating? How about someone who "went crazy" over their "master" being attacked? I can't seem to find any post that matches your "observation".
I won't speak for Demetrio, and I will also not name people as I don't see how that contributes to a productive conversation about a 5 year olds level.
However, if the shoe fits wear it.
Here is the issue. It is all dealing with inference. It is something we all need to be careful of, IMO. First, we need to all realize that we are unwillingly bound by own experiences. Whatever they may be. These experiences limit our ability to see things clearly and for what they really are.
When we are presented with new information or experiences that do not confirm our past ones, we will experience dissonance. Yes, even if it is something that we WANT to experience, such as the case is with IS. Many have wanted that experience for years, but sounds like until Dan arrived, that they did not experience on the level that was acceptable or that was reproducible.
So, I think the biggest step is to recognize this in yourself. So, I have no problem with some one stating "I've studied Aikido for 20 years, and this stuff works and affects my actions in this way". A very precise and constructive statement that we can form an intelligent conversation around.
To do anything other than that is complete conjecture, theory, and really only a hypothesis. What Demetrio calls "dishonest and exaggeration". Which really that is what it is. You are being dishonest AND you ARE exaggerating as you are commenting on something that is outside of your area of experiences.
So, you could observe Dan pass a Triangle Pass of a "BJJer". That in a one time observation and yes you can form a hypothesis around that event that says, "Hey I think this has some use in BJJ." However, if you don't do BJJ, or you do not see a repeat study, then you cannot conclude that it is now gospel. In Mr Goldsbury's World, they have something called "Peer Review" for a reason, and we have not seen that.
What we do have is limited vignettes with various people, most of which remain "unnamed", who's skill level we cannot ascertain, that participate in one seminar, that do not talk bout their experiences.
This does not help us. It does not give constructive feedback and it does not allow for productive conversations. It is simply testimony mostly by people that frankly are outside of their area of expertise if you ask me.
I can understand the phenomenon. The Aikido community is ripe for the picking. Most of us, myself included, were attracted to this art based on a promise of "something different" than the ordinary. We were promised insights, a better way to martially do stuff, internal strength, spirituality, etc, etc. In doing so, we were required to set aside our paradigms and the past experiences in order to open up to this.
It is necessary for us to do this in order to grow. However, we must not set aside everything, and we must not once again turn over wholesale our body of critical thought and mind. I think we should also be willing to find new measures maybe at the same time. It is a lot to retool. If you return to the old ways of measuring things, you will get stuck in the same old rut, except you have new ways of doing that!
So, if you say it will work in BJJ, you'd damn well better be a BJJ, and I don't mean a blue or even a purple belt. Your lineage had better be clear. I want to see your tournament record, and I want to see film of you doing something different against a comparable BJJer. That IMO constitutes Peer review.
If you can't then don't talk about it. Just don't talk about it. It doesn't do anybody any good!
If you say it works in fighting, well then I want to see how you do that as well...same type of peer review.