Drunken Monkey

he also doesn't understand the difference between 'understand' and 'interpret'. and um, i'm guessing someone's has warned him about openly baiting me. as to who gave the warning, i have no clue.

hehe, thanks for that.... i was going to link that but you beat me to it. pah but don't think that repays for that cd! the gift of zero gravity is priceless! have you been downloading their latest offerings?

actually when i typed in 'nice and clear' it was in reference with the way i type my post (it=the post) which would explain the the part previously regarding posting in verse. i find it interesting that you saw this as 'frustration'.

legible - comprehensible. my bad. i'll admit defeat on that one and shrink away now....

little question. aside from the silat taught at jkd places around my parts of the world, silat isn't really that widespread. i have come across a few schools that offer silat. my question is how do you tell if one is qualified? i mean, are there instant warning signs or names that should be there? i know that it's kinda hard to track lines but is there any 'foolproof' way of checking?

you'll find that happens a lot. he attempts to correct someone, either with respects to language or perhaps the subject at hand. when he gets confronted, he asks more questions whilst avoiding having to answer those posed to him OR he passes things as a misunderstanding of the way he types/speaks. have a look around. you'll see what i mean. and i'm not typing in verse, just making it nice and clear.

JET? i'm not sure what it's called. it's been a long time since i had to do any real study of it. i only know of it's existance and the principles with which it works: using the fields within the subject combined with the field generated by the device/tokomak to 'suspend' subject. (please excuse my way over simplified explanation). and yeah, i vaguely remember that it's primary test/use was for containing plasmas. and yes, i'll leave this thread now too cos some things are beginning to bug me. i've had far too many warnings in the past to stay here much longer! seeya around!

well, we were talking about using anti-matter in a weapon. he proposed that a 'mini' tokomak (after i foolishly gave out that bit of free info about anti-matter storage...) could be made to contain the anti-matter. the problem here would be (ignoring the problem with making the anti-matter) i) how to contain the anti-matter prior to storage. ii) how to measure the anti-matter whilst contained without affecting the magnetic field and hence causing failure in the tokomak resulting in anihilation iii) how to make a mini tokomak (more specifically, how to make the mini power-station to go with it) iv) how to isolate the weapon from outside fields that might interfere with the fields within the tokomak which would result in failure and anihilation it goes on. but you get the idea. it is possible. just not on the scale we were talking about. i mean, i only know of one tokomak and that's the size of a power station. then there's the fact that it's powered by it's own power station. not small and definitely not a portable device. and that's no even going into the cost of the whole process.

reminds me of a debate i had with someone about the possibilites of using a magnetic field to contain a small piece of anti-matter..... he kept on repeating that you can use a magnetic field to suspend it but couldn't actually say how you would do it.

having one foot off the ground doesn't always mean you are unstable.

.....things that jerry says more eloquently and succintly than i can.

um can i chime in and say that the physics that rule our universe are actually quite hazy. at its worst, it is all a bunch of guess work; highly sophisticated guess-work that results in rules and principles that seem to describe how/why things work but guess work non-the-less. they aren't totally complete and depending on how far, or close you look, they don't always work. in order to make it work, more guess work is applied. (and then they go and look for 'real' proof) as i said, it all seems to work (as in, the numbers fit and follows predicted results) BUT if a new theory is discovered that renders the old obsolete, then the old is totally over-written as it were. and if both ways seem to work, then they keep both of them. this is how unstable the world of physics is and this is ignoring the whole nature of quantum mechanics and related. you talk of science as if it is a giver of absolute fact. fact is, science can't answer everything. my physics teacher told me. if it blows up, it's chemistry. if it dies, it's biology. if it doesn't work, it's physics. um, should point out that i'm not saying anything about ki here. just pointing out a few things about the sciences/physics.

and not entirely unrelated, it is also what the octagonal symbol/device is called. incidentally, 'pa-kua' is also the cantonese for 'nosy'.

good luck getting a straight answer in legible english.

I know i've kinda had a bad attitude, i just felt like i was being attacked, and they wheren't even reading what i was saying well, i did read the things you were typing. there were three things you mentioned that i didn't like the sound of. i) you only have one, at best two years experience in karate and yet you feel like you'd do better learning at home, by yourself from books and vids. ii) you want to join a class but don't want, in ANY case, to have to go back to white and go through basic training again. iii) also you mentioned basics "for the 4th time". so does that mean that in the (at most) two years, (does this "two years" include the time you spent copying moves from books at home?) you started and stopped training three times? can i ask why you haven't been able to stick to a dedicated training regime?

well, karate might be a guide but at the end of the day it is up to the individual to follow or not. after all, we're not in fuedal japan and we don't follow the code of budo. the modern teacher doesn't give orders. he guides.

all thanks to ONE new member!

in any case. i don't do the peaches as refered to in 'monkey steals peaches'.

we could put it to the vote. and yeah. tai wan uses mandarin more than cantonese so they would tend to use "wushu". except it is actually that they use the proper term "wu-shu" or more specifically, they would say they train/learn "wu".

no, really, i can't eat peaches. i have an allergic reaction to some fruit. my throat goes all funny and contracts somewhat, and my lips an gums swell. peaches, plums, apples, pears. cherries are the worst. cherries work in a delayed fashion. i'd be okay for ten minutes then i can't speak.

what? what is 'romaticising'? and you didn't say certain member. you said a certain member. big difference. yes. how people read your words makes a difference. which is why i choose my words very carefully and i make sure that anyone can understand what i am saying with no confusion. when i'm aware that my use of language is going to be bad, i usually fore-warn people. in this case, your presentation of the english language is just bad. this is what you wrote "Careful-a certain member here (not particulary me) will agrue-debate that." careful - a warning of some sort. a certain member - refering to a specific person. will argue - as in the definite tense. and if you want to get technical, "not particularly me" is incorrect grammar.

well, have you looked at his website? even the full history is offered for sale. surely something like that should be available to the public. i can say that a lot of the names he offers up are legit as it were. i really have little knowledge of the monkey styles. not something that appeals to me.

guys, take a step back here. one of you is arguing that 'ki' is body mechanics given a name. this 'ki' isn't the same as the other is talking about. if you ask JEM to prove his 'ki' i.e body mechanics and qualities then he kinda can. on the other hand, ken is talking about the mystic 'ki', which he is saying can't be proven. right? or have i missed something....?

but to say "a certain member here (not particulary me) will agrue-debate that" suggests that you have someone specific in mind, else you would've just something like "someone might".

because i don't know his methods. what i can comment on is that i'm not too keen on how he seems to have focused everything on 'selling' things.