Just thoughts on that approach really. Owen's is about the only opening I have any proper grasp of. I do ok with it. I guess the most useful info would be thoughts on the Nimzo Larsen. It seems just the Owen's flipped and a guess would suggest it should be played along similar lines, but thats a guess...
Owen's Defense or Nah?
Sort:
I guess for one, can you expect Black to aggressively seize the centre or are they like to play more cautiously or deploy some other response entirely?
In the case of NL
I find these openings to produce fresh positions early on (below master level) and so I use them almost exclusively since I like thinking early in the opening (and dislike studying/memorising theory) and since I am less likely to walk into my opponent's comfort zone. I often succeed in taking back the centre, at which point my bishop(s) and other pieces are superior to my opponent's. But I guess in the long term, you should use other openings as your main weapon 
True. Owen's has just been my way in and I think will always be my comfort zone. Fundamentally its not a strong position in conventional terms, but I am far from conventional as a person. I do need to broaden my knowledge though, yes, and in fact I continue to play Kings Pawn/ Sicilian against my tutor but I must say if you are going to teach yourself Chess, don't enjoy learning by rote and are not afraid to take a lot of bumps and bruises then I think Owen's is an excellent way to learn. It certainly lets you stand toe to toe in a punch up with players with a lot more experience, and that is a great way to learn as long as you dont mind getting a lot of bloody noses. I prefer to have a fighting chance of a lucky win than a certain slow death by a thousand cuts. But I do need to learn how to fight that kind of fight as well, but Owen's has been a great way into the field.
I think theoretically it fascinates me as well and feeds into nuerous other preoccupations from Internal Martial Arts to Taoist Statescraft.
I have a book on English Defense that I plan to read.
I have read that you can play b6 against almost anything White has to offer. What do people think about that?
But regardless if I am playing it well, I don't think I will ever have the fluency and confidence I have with Owen's with any other opening. But that is one of the most beautiful things about it. Its central dynamics are so simple, if perilous, that once you grasp those dynamics you can just come out swinging and play with great alacrity. Probably not the solid foundation of a career in Chess, but excellent for anyone who likes playing with ferocity and originality. You can't be overly afraid to lose though which is no good if you intend to use Chess to feed your family. That is not my problem in life.
Its a usefull thought about the superiority of Black's Bishops in the case of taking back the centre. That kind of info is great. These are the kind of notions that burrow into ones mind with Owen's and makes it easy to lash out cheerfully in the knowledge that everything is going according to plan, even if your opponent thinks it is nothing but chaos. 
Thats excellent info. Thanks.
Naturally it would be a mistake as you say to assume the two were the same, but it is excellent to that the basic principle of pressuring the e-pawn is mirrored. That is great to hear. Pretty much that is the main thing I try keep in mind, that and that you are mobilising your minor pieces. Then you get in among em, disrupt their lines and break open their skin of pawns over the eye. This it seems to me to be the same. Obviously there is a near infinate number of differences regarding light squares, dark squares, tempo, strategy etc. But it seems many of the tactical basics are similar?
*Excellent to hear
Ok. This all great stuff. If you don't ask you don't get eh? Got to know what to ask and how to ask though. Thank you very much. This is all great.
I mean this is good. I think one basic point about Owen's is that Black linvites White to have their way conventionally speaking and develop their ideal centre only to set that centre up for destruction and recapture. But as you point out, this logic hardly makes any sense as White even if the geometry is similar as by definition the opening Tempo suggests setting the agenda from the very first move and backing it up all the way. So this discussion is clarifying these basic notions in my mind, muddled though they may still sound. So much as Owen's has been my way into opening theory for Black, Nimzo Larsen promises to be my way into the theory of White. Also it should add to my powers as a bluffer at dinner parties. Thank you
What piece exactly should I get in f5? Sorry if thats a silly question.
Ill look at that lecture too. Thanks
Ill look at that lecture too. Thanks
Of course the pawn f5. Boff! Rookie chess notion error!
Also. Who here leads with a Larsen? These are both genuine questions. Help a brother out.