"Anyway, try Epee or Saber"

I have, as I noted.

"...make it theory."

If 'having rules' makes it theory versus application, than epee and sabre too are theory.

"Those rules are mostly in your own interest - for example - you can't tackle anybody. Why would you want to though? You'd get stabbed the minute you tried."

Would you? You'd never know since the rules prohibit it. Dogbrother's style fighting seems to show that tackling is a very viable tactic. Curiously, so do the fight manuals that describe the art modern fencing was derived from. Here's a resource where you can verify the latter: http://www.aemma.org/library_top.htm ; and the former: http://www.dogbrothers.com/dogbytesindex.htm

"What 'rules' are these that epee has?"

I'm a little confused by this discussion tactic. You give an answer to this question in the sentance preceeding it.

"I didn't train it for SD."

Then our difference of opinion is explained!

"It is. No difference between this and three legged Cat Kungfu or Kaiukata- kai Karate. There is a right and wrong way to do things."

I don't understand how this 'answer' addresses the question at all.

"Some people just suck at fencing, you are quite wrong here."

Or this.

"Plus - with only foil , you are missing the whole slashing thing."

Epee slashes now?

"I could arge the same saying the epee target is whole body while foil is only chest."

You could, but again it wouldn't seem to have anything to do with what was being discussed. I said was that foil was faster. You actually agree with that two lines above calling it bull. And I said faster necessitates more controlled movements, which was only a repeat of what you said in the previous post.

"No , about it teaching you little."

Which is something I never said to begin with.

"I could say the unrestricted target zone totally necciessitate defence in Epee..."

And again, I was never commenting on 'defense.'