The Art or The Person

[flashlock]

Actually "Flintlock" as a mistake that I corrected with edit, not a joke

Sorry 'bout that!

Oh, I thought it was clever! Haha!

 

[Cryozombie]

This is all nothing but opinion so take it with a grain of salt...

I think style has some merit depending on what you are trying to learn.

It seems Obvious that a JSA school will produce a better swordsman than a BJJ school. On the flipside of that coin, BJJ is gonna make a better grappler than that JSA school, so you cannot discount a system when talking about who's "better". Just depends what you want to be better AT... overall. Do I think a skilled, commited swordsman WITH a sword would probaly beat a grappler in a fight? Yeah... but do I think they could do the same empty handed? Highly unlikley.

That said...

I really think its the individual. Lets stick to the BJJ example that has been prevalant thru this thread... I'm gonna make up some numbers for my "fictional" schools of each style.

If a BJJ school does 90% grappling, and 10% "stand up fighting" and a "American Karate & Kickboxing" school teached 90% stand up fighting and 10% grappling... who is gonna win on the ground? A student of the BJJ school, or the karate school? The BJJ guy right?

BUT

What if that BJJ guy goes to, maybe 1 class a week, for say 3 months, and the Karate Guy goes to 6 classes a week, for 3 months? Even with the smaller percentages of groundfighting at the karate school, the BJJ guy may in fact have less actual training and mat time... and the fact its a BJJ school, is not going to magically make him a winner. He may have more tools in his toolbox, but not knowing how to swing the hammer or cut with the saw won't save him from the guy with 1 screwdriver in his toolbox who knows exactly how that screwdriver works. The same is true if the situation was reversed, and the BJJ guy went 6 days a week, and the karate guy went 1... if it came to a stand up fight, the BJJ guy probably has more experience... He now knows how that Hammer and saw work, and how they can be used against that screwdriver the guy has in his toolbox.

So... I feel that while elements of both come into play, at the end of the day when one man goes home, and the other to the morgue, it comes down to the person you face.
​

 

[LawDog]

In the street, beside the opponents themselves, there are many other variables that can the alter the outcome of a confrontation. On a slippery surface a standup fighter will have the disadvantage. Inside of a lounge in a tight area a Judo/Jujitsu type fighter could have the edge. In area's where there could be debris on the ground, like broken glass etc., a gound fighter may not want to go to the ground.
Because of these outside variables I believe the fighter that has the best chance in the street is the one who is able to adapt so that he can fight in any environment.

 

[flashlock]

In the street, beside the opponents themselves, there are many other variables that can the alter the outcome of a confrontation. On a slippery surface a standup fighter will have the disadvantage. Inside of a lounge in a tight area a Judo/Jujitsu type fighter could have the edge. In area's where there could be debris on the ground, like broken glass etc., a gound fighter may not want to go to the ground.
Because of these outside variables I believe the fighter that has the best chance in the street is the one who is able to adapt so that he can fight in any environment.

What if you eliminated the "outside variables"? For example, have a TKD fighter go against a Taijutsu fighter of the same age, sex, height, weight, and years of training? Then the only real factor would be the style. Randomness could be eliminated by having 25 such fights, then looking at the results. If the score is 50/50 (or within 5% points of that), then that proves style was not a factor; TKD and Bujinkan Taijutsu are, despite their vast differences, basically equal.

If you did that with all the major styles, all would have to have similiar results; then we could scientifically say that style is only a minor factor, all things being equal. A 20 year old, 5' 9", 175 pound male Muy Thai figher with 5 years of experience has a 50% chance of beating a 20 year old, 5' 9", 175 lb male fighter w/ 5 yrs of experience from ANY other art--BJJ, Aikdio, Tai Chi, Hopkido--doesn't matter, one happy rainbow!

You could have them fight on various terrains and in various weather conditions (even wheel out that big revolving disk with the spikes from the Flash Gordon movie).

Would all those styles be equal? With such vastly different techniques and training methods?

Can we all agree that the answer is... probably not (or even, for the less mushy, "Hell no!")?

So, between equally trained, equally built individuals, the only real factor IS style--your life could hinge on what style you picked... hope it's a good one!

 

[LawDog]

flashlock,
From what you have described an overal performance evaluation of the styles could be established. This evaluation would have to be done over a period of time to get the proper feel of a style.
Styles are not equal, they can be broken down into,
A) A martial art system that is either or both defensive / offensive,
B) A sports type martial arts system,(excessive rules),
C) A made up I don't know what I'm doing type of system.

For the street the winner would be A. :ultracool

 

[FearlessFreep]

What if you eliminated the "outside variables"? For example, have a TKD fighter go against a Taijutsu fighter of the same age, sex, height, weight, and years of training?

That does not eliminate the 'outside variabes'

By "The Art Or The Person", what is usually meant by 'the person' is the character, will, and intensity of the individual. You and I train for 10 years each, but one of us trains harder, has more strength of will, has more intensity and more devotion in that training. You train 2 times a week and think it's good enough; I train 5 times a week and wish I could do more. Other than te simple time invovled there is the attitde we take into the training. Some people have more natural skill and some people must push past the tendancies in their body so not everyone gets the same results out of the same amount of time. "The Person" is the character of the individual, not their height, weight or years of training.

Also, very, very few people who take fighting seriously restrict themselves to one art. They may not train multiple arts. but you can bet they are paying attention, and adapting the application of their arts to either incorporate useful stuff, or at the very least to use their own arts to counter another art. My first art was Taekwondo but we incorporated joint manipulation from Hapkido and hip throws from Judo, etc..etc... One could argue that those techniques were always a part of Taekwondo and had gotten buried under the emphasis on kicks, or one could argue that encounters with other arts in the ring simply made people awareof the need to incorporate other techniques within the natural philosophy of Taekwondo. Either way, no Taekwondo practitioner I know who takes fighting and self defense seriously is looking at the world through a purely Taekwondo set of eyes. No BJJ stylist is unaware of what a Taekwondo of Muy Thai is going to attempt to do. The strength of Taekwondo is to keep the opponent outside at a distance. The strength of BJJ is to get in close, make contact, eliminate and create space, feel the opponent. A BJJ stylist is never going to get a TKD stylist unless he can get past that outer distance, so they work a lot on doing that. If youare a pure BJJ stylist who doesn't use striking...basically training for BJJ sport techniques, then that's not an issue for you, but no BJJ stylist who trains for a serious fight (self defense or any non-pure-BJJ sport competition) is going to be unaware of how other disciplines are going to attempt to fight.

And that is why BJJ did so well for awhile in MMA competitions. BJJ could be developed to counter attacks from other arts because the other arts were out there and obvious, but not many people were aware of BJJ so not many people knew how to counter it, yet. As the success of BJJ style techniques in sport competition grew, people started learning what it was about, and how to counter it. Credit BJJ for making people aware of that component of fighting, but if you've been watching UFC recently, you're not seeing many matches won with submissions and even those submissions were set up using non-grappling techniques incorprated with the grappling techniques. (That itself is just a natural part of the ebb and flow of competition as people react to what's winning today) A pure-BJJ stylist cannot win in MMA any more than a pure Taekwondo stylist or a pure Boxer or whataver. It's not about BJJ as an art; BJJ is just a set of tools that are very effective in certain circumstances, not so effective in others, and useless in still others. Which is the same for most arts.

There are purists who study and advance the art, and we need those for the techniques in the arts to improve. Then there are artists who love the art and practice the art for the joy of the art, and there are a lot of dojos and dojangs with a lot of people doing that and enjoying it. And there are fighters who take what is learned by the various purists and apply what they can in the wider but shallower context of effective fighting. We need them all.

 

[meta_aesthete]

There are purists who study and advance the art, and we need those for the techniques in the arts to improve. Then there are artists who love the art and practice the art for the joy of the art, and there are a lot of dojos and dojangs with a lot of people doing that and enjoying it. And there are fighters who take what is learned by the various purists and apply what they can in the wider but shallower context of effective fighting. We need them all.

Andrew Green made a great post a few days ago along these lines. Frankly I think it's a little delusional to think that any H2H fighting system is going to be a reliable self-defense system.

Whatever you think of Marc "Animal" MacYoung, he makes a lot of good points in this article. I don't know if it's been brought up before, but here's the gist:

Martial arts are not self-defense.
Personal safety is a jambalaya issue of its very own. What's more, self-defense (the act of physically defending yourself) is only one small contributing factor to the larger subject of personal safety. Personal safety is a complex situation involving many factors of which, physical self-defense is no more than a spice to add the final touches. By that I not only mean knowing the goals and standards of self-defense, but also any weapons and tools; and knowing their legal application for that purpose. In light of this, your "fighting skills" are even less important. I am on record for saying: Flat out, when it comes to personal safety, safety of your family, self-defense and crime prevention your "fighting prowess" is less than 5% of the equation. If you choose to ignore the other 95% of the issues involved you're setting yourself up to get your brains blown into a fine pink mist if and when you find yourself in a live-fire situation. The reason that is a valid statement is that in personal safety: Physically engaging in violence is the last level of a larger strategy. A strategy that not only is designed to -- and most often does -- prevent the situation from escalating to violence, but if it still does go violent gives you a set of articulatable facts and standards that explain and justify your behavior to the authorities.

The conceptual error that the "Martial Arts IS Self-Defense" crowd make is that they make engaging in physical confrontation the foundation of their self-defense strategy. The reason they get to "What if you can't run?" so fast is that they no reliable strategy FOR personal safety other than the idea of hitting someone. It may be wrapped up and justified in countless different ways, but isn't one of the critieria for a violent person: Someone who can't figure out how to get their own way except through violence? If you can't figure out how to keep yourself and your family "safe" except by getting involved in a punch out with a group of street toughs, then you have a flawed definition of personal safety. And odds are, your definition of self-defense is off base too.

It really made me think about the reasons for doing martial arts, and which to study. When you're facing a pistol (and aren't in highly improbable disarm range) then no matter what MA you study, you're pretty much as useless any historian (TMA) or athelete (MMA). And if someone really wants to hurt you, they're not going to challenge you to a duel.

So why are we doing what we're doing? It's a highly personal and subjective answer in this light. My personal approach? After getting a few more months in the Bujinkan, I'd love to roll with some BJJers. I think the two arts, practiced correctly, would make for an interesting and compatible system of close-quarters defense. But I'm not under the illusion that it's necessarily going to apply, and that it can't all be rendered useless in an instant by a 17 year old thug with a stolen gun. So, in my opinion, you have to look for reasons outside of pure self-defense when choosing a martial art. For pure self-defense, you'd be better off training with pistols and knives (and getting the appropriate licenses to carry/knowing use of force laws in your location) than with fists and kicks.

Off topic, yeah, but I read that article recently and it's been on my mind.

 

[exile]

MetaAes—there are two different statements: (i) a close-quarters fighting systems is ALL you need to master to assure yourself of personal protection under all circumstances, and (ii) a close-quarters fighting systems is a crucial COMPONENT of the skills you need to master to assure yourself of personal protection under all circumstances. I don't know anyone who believes (i); it's a straw man whom no one is going to defend. But there are plenty of MAists, based on their professional use of their H2H combat skills as LEOs and soldiers, and others who have found themselves forced against their will into violent situations in which they had to defend themselves, who can attest to the truth of (ii).

 

[meta_aesthete]

Hi exile,

I'm not arguing about the utility, and it's as much of a strawman to think that I don't agree with (ii). If it came across that way, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear.

But, in my view, the vast majority of people in society are pretty ignorant to the fighting arts. And the vast majority of them die of heart disease, not violent assault. They probably get into a few scraps and maybe get mugged, but generally they ensure their safety through other realms than being able to fight H2H effectively.

So my feeling is that if your primary concern is for the safety of your person, your family, and your property, then there are more efficient places that you could spend your time and money (home security, firearms training/licenses to carry, safeguards from identity theft, set up a community watch, research crime stats in your area and designate places to avoid, etc.) than in a martial arts dojo or gym.

And again, my opinion, is that -- aware of it or not -- most people are not primarily motivated to join martial-arts for pure self-defense purposes. Some people want to challenge their bodies and minds, some are battling insecurities, some people are looking to compete, some people want ego gratification, some people just think it's cool. And if your H2H skills improve significantly at the same time, it's a huge plus.

I think that LEOs and military personnel are an exception in this case, because their line of work (LEOs especially) demands that they engage in H2H situations on a regular basis. Accounting or construction work doesn't make the same demands. And my sense is that cases of ordinary people being forced into H2H situations that couldn't have been avoided through other means are more anecdotally than statistically significant.

This is just the conclusion I've come to in my relatively short 23 years on this planet. I'm certainly not a closed book on the topic, but that's how I see it so far.

 

[exile]

Hi exile,

I'm not arguing about the utility, and it's as much of a strawman to think that I don't agree with (ii). If it came across that way, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear.

But, in my view, the vast majority of people in society are pretty ignorant to the fighting arts. And the vast majority of them die of heart disease, not violent assault. They probably get into a few scraps and maybe get mugged, but generally they ensure their safety through other realms than being able to fight H2H effectively.

So my feeling is that if your primary concern is for the safety of your person, your family, and your property, then there are more efficient places that you could spend your time and money (home security, firearms training/licenses to carry, safeguards from identity theft, set up a community watch, research crime stats in your area and designate places to avoid, etc.) than in a martial arts dojo or gym.

And again, my opinion, is that -- aware of it or not -- most people are not primarily motivated to join martial-arts for pure self-defense purposes. Some people want to challenge their bodies and minds, some are battling insecurities, some people are looking to compete, some people want ego gratification, some people just think it's cool. And if your H2H skills improve significantly at the same time, it's a huge plus.

I think that LEOs and military personnel are an exception in this case, because their line of work (LEOs especially) demands that they engage in H2H situations on a regular basis. Accounting or construction work doesn't make the same demands. And my sense is that cases of ordinary people being forced into H2H situations that couldn't have been avoided through other means are more anecdotally than statistically significant.

This is just the conclusion I've come to in my relatively short 23 years on this planet. I'm certainly not a closed book on the topic, but that's how I see it so far.

I certainly wouldn't quarrel with any of what you've said here. But I do think that there's another dimension to the argument. Let's assume that most people don't actually need H2H skills to get through life unharmed. That once might not have been true—middle class people in modern Western society have a far-flung network of social institutions that keep us at arm's length from everyday violence in a way that the majority of people in human history, the ones who created these fighting systems, never enjoyed. But that's the point: the technical content of these arts themselves is aimed at combat effectiveness, because that was what the people who devised these systems needed. They are systems of structured violence. If you take up one of these arts (particularly those based on the `one strike to end the fight' strategy), for whatever reason, your skill level—your technical mastery—inevitably corresponds to your ability to deliver that violence to deter or incapacitate an attacker. So to the extent that you want to improve as an exponent of that art, you are trying to improve your ability to damage an attacker to the point where he can no longer pose a threat to you.

It's like chess: you might enjoy it as a form of intellectual stimulation, testing and extending your ability to visualize different possibilities in an abstract play of powers corresponding to the moves of different pieces. But the way you mark your progress in the game is by beating opponents, and not just beating them, but in setting up situations on the chessboard where at a certain point their defeat is forced, no matter what they do. Whatever other benefits come from chess, if you want to progress in it, to reach greater levels of proficiency, you do so by beating opponents in a way which gradually reduces and finally eliminates any chance of escape on their part. If you want to progress in the MAs, you do so by increasing your ability to apply force to a violent attacker in ways that remove him from the fight, no matter what he does.

So it seems to me inherent in someone's desire to improve as a MAist that they are—whether they're conscous of it or not—committed to the application of what I'm calling the structured violence inherent in all MAs to a real attacker effectively enough to neutralize the threat that attacker poses. In other words, in saying you want to improve technically as a MAist, you're pretty much buying into the idea that you're getting better at hurting an assailant badly enough that he cannot hurt you. I suspect that a lot of people who do MAs seriously, and aspire to improve as MAists, think of their improvement in these terms...

 

[Jenna]

Let's look at this another way, my friends. Please be honest: make a list of the top 3 styles you would most dread facing in a life and death situation. No need to explain why a certain style is on your list, no need to belittle any other style... I'm wondering what we'll all put down, and what we'll all leave off because it's not "scary".

Here's mine:

1. BJJ
2. JKD Concepts
3. Muy Thai Boxing

(You see where this is going...?)

Hello sir
Personally the style fills me with dread much less than the competence of the practitioner. In the for-real attack, I would maintain that the style is almost utterly irrelevant. Is it not of greater importance to heed and watch for the opponents intentions both in terms of what he conveys about his mindset and about his physical movements? I mean rather than taking note of whether he favours one style of punch over another?

In reality [and yes I have thank you very much] there is little to no time to consider one style over another and any rational or even subjective dread that we might otherwise feel for the various styles dissolves into adrenaline.. imho..

To me, an attempted takedown by a BJJ expert is no different from an attempted takedown by a boozed up letch at closing time on a Saturday night.. either way I do not want to be within their range at the time the attempt is made! I think for me the person without any art at all can be as deadly as one proficient in one or several.. So in reply to MJS original question I would say the person every time..

I hope this makes sense and does not sound argumentative

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[KenpoTex]

I'm not one of those that believe that all systems are equal. I definately feel that there are some that are superior to others and are more applicable to self-defense.

However, I believe that the determining factor is the person. Specifically, how they train, their mindset, and their level of experience with regard to applying their material in a spontaneous, adreneline-fueled situation.

While skimming through this thread, I saw a question about picking styles whose practicioners you would least want to fight in a real SD encounter. I'd honestly say that I would be most worried when dealing with the average product of our "mean streets" or our prison system. These guys typically have some basic boxing skills and a few dirty tricks and that's pretty much it. The difference is that while they may only know 4 or 5 punches (and the basic combos that can be created from these), they have used them for real. Many of these people have probably been in more fights than everyone involved in this discussion combined. Furthermore, and this is big, their mindset/attitude is such that they have no qualms about using violence at the drop of a hat...agression counts for a lot. In short, I would be much more worried dealing with these types of people than with most "martial-artists."

just my $0.02...

 

[flashlock]

I'm not one of those that believe that all systems are equal. I definately feel that there are some that are superior to others and are more applicable to self-defense.

However, I believe that the determining factor is the person. Specifically, how they train, their mindset, and their level of experience with regard to applying their material in a spontaneous, adreneline-fueled situation.

While skimming through this thread, I saw a question about picking styles whose practicioners you would least want to fight in a real SD encounter. I'd honestly say that I would be most worried when dealing with the average product of our "mean streets" or our prison system. These guys typically have some basic boxing skills and a few dirty tricks and that's pretty much it. The difference is that while they may only know 4 or 5 punches (and the basic combos that can be created from these), they have used them for real. Many of these people have probably been in more fights than everyone involved in this discussion combined. Furthermore, and this is big, their mindset/attitude is such that they have no qualms about using violence at the drop of a hat...agression counts for a lot. In short, I would be much more worried dealing with these types of people than with most "martial-artists."

just my $0.02...

Well said (the point has been brought up before, but you made it quite vivid, at least in my mind).

Training as "live" as possible, though not fully adequate, is a step closer to how the "bad guys" live every day. Interesting... thanks.

 

[exile]

I'm not one of those that believe that all systems are equal. I definately feel that there are some that are superior to others and are more applicable to self-defense.

However, I believe that the determining factor is the person. Specifically, how they train, their mindset, and their level of experience with regard to applying their material in a spontaneous, adreneline-fueled situation.

While skimming through this thread, I saw a question about picking styles whose practicioners you would least want to fight in a real SD encounter. I'd honestly say that I would be most worried when dealing with the average product of our "mean streets" or our prison system. These guys typically have some basic boxing skills and a few dirty tricks and that's pretty much it. The difference is that while they may only know 4 or 5 punches (and the basic combos that can be created from these), they have used them for real. Many of these people have probably been in more fights than everyone involved in this discussion combined. Furthermore, and this is big, their mindset/attitude is such that they have no qualms about using violence at the drop of a hat...agression counts for a lot. In short, I would be much more worried dealing with these types of people than with most "martial-artists."

just my $0.02...

I agree with you, Matt. And so do others; e.g., check out Shaderon's post #28 in this thread, the relevant quotable quote being

It's the guys with the murderous intent in thier eyes that I'd least like to face.

Does anyone remember a book that came out quite a few years ago titled Wiseguys? It was a kind of ethnographic study of organized crime's `foot soldiers', the muscle and shooters who keep the business humming. There's a passage in the book that struck me very forcibly when I first read it: the author talks about what it is that sets wiseguys apart from other people. He notes that they aren't necessarily tougher, or stronger, or more skilled at combat than other people by any means. What distinguishes them, he concludes, is that they have an abnormal capacity for violence. They have no inhibitions about using violence to get what they want, no consciences to speak of, no reservations. To them, the most brutal attack on another person you can imagine has the same emotional impact that switching a light switch on or off has for the rest of us. Those are the guys you have to worry about nasty encounters with...

 

[flashlock]

Hello sir
Personally the style fills me with dread much less than the competence of the practitioner. In the for-real attack, I would maintain that the style is almost utterly irrelevant. Is it not of greater importance to heed and watch for the opponents intentions both in terms of what he conveys about his mindset and about his physical movements? I mean rather than taking note of whether he favours one style of punch over another?

In reality [and yes I have thank you very much] there is little to no time to consider one style over another and any rational or even subjective dread that we might otherwise feel for the various styles dissolves into adrenaline.. imho..

To me, an attempted takedown by a BJJ expert is no different from an attempted takedown by a boozed up letch at closing time on a Saturday night.. either way I do not want to be within their range at the time the attempt is made! I think for me the person without any art at all can be as deadly as one proficient in one or several.. So in reply to MJS original question I would say the person every time..

I hope this makes sense and does not sound argumentative

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

Thanks, Jenna:

I agree with everything you say. But if you HAD to answer the question, which style of MA would you least like to face, which style would you pick?

Ta,

 

[Kacey]

Thanks, Jenna:

I agree with everything you say. But if you HAD to answer the question, which style of MA would you least like to face, which style would you pick?

Ta,

If you agree with her, why is it important that she answer the question? For myself, I find that her answer is complete as it is: she, like many others, myself included, is much more concerned about the competence of the individual than the art the individual practices. It takes very few techniques, if they are properly practiced and performed, to do serious damage to another person. Many of these techniques are common to many styles - it is the competence and intensity with which they are performed that determines the danger of the opponent - not the art the opponent studies.

 

[flashlock]

If you agree with her, why is it important that she answer the question? For myself, I find that her answer is complete as it is: she, like many others, myself included, is much more concerned about the competence of the individual than the art the individual practices. It takes very few techniques, if they are properly practiced and performed, to do serious damage to another person. Many of these techniques are common to many styles - it is the competence and intensity with which they are performed that determines the danger of the opponent - not the art the opponent studies.

Because I wanted to see if there was a consensus on what art people most feared to face--IF you HAD to pick and MA... alas...

If most people were afraid of XYZ, then we could ask questions of why--what made XYZ more intimidating.

Does that help? If no one wants to answer the question, it won't go anywhere.

 

[FearlessFreep]

f no one wants to answer the question, it won't go anywhere.

Most think it a non-sensical or non-reasonable question. I have yet to see a style that would make me fear someone simply because they practiced that style. It's the agressiveness or sociopathy of a person that scares me.

 

[flashlock]

f no one wants to answer the question, it won't go anywhere.

Most think it a non-sensical or non-reasonable question. I have yet to see a style that would make me fear someone simply because they practiced that style. It's the agressivenessor sociopathy of a person that scares me.

I'm not sure if it's non-reasonable or just unreasonable; it's just a question. If you were in a UFC match, which style would you least like to face? Does that make it easier to answer?

You might be more afraid of a psychotic criminal than any martial artist, or more afraid of black widow spiders--but the question for the nth time is what style would you least like to face?

I feel like I'm asking "would you choose a red car or a blue car", and getting the answer: I like yellow motorcycles.

Anyway, sorry my question is just so unanswerable--perhaps I can sell it to a zen monestary for use as a koan.

 

[bydand]

Because I wanted to see if there was a consensus on what art people most feared to face--IF you HAD to pick and MA... alas...

If most people were afraid of XYZ, then we could ask questions of why--what made XYZ more intimidating.

Does that help? If no one wants to answer the question, it won't go anywhere.

It would appear that the general consensus is that it is the person and not a particular art or style.

You might be more afraid of a psychotic criminal than any martial artist, or more afraid of black widow spiders--but the question for the nth time is what style would you least like to face?

Actually the original question of this thread is "the art or the person" NOT "what style" quit trying to take the thread off topic with your personal obsession with BJJ. If you want the question of what style, start another thread.

I feel like I'm asking "would you choose a red car or a blue car", and getting the answer: I like yellow motorcycles.

The question, using your analogy was "would you choose a red car or a blue car?" and when somebody answers "blue car" you keep asking "why not the red car, what is wrong with the red car, the red car is better, jeeze don't you see the advantage of the red car, WHYYYYYY are you not picking the red car?"