JerryLove

Japanese Symbol for Kihttp://members.aol.com/rc13/Aikido/ki-red.gif Chinese symbol for qihttp://www.jadeacupuncture.com/Qi.jpg They are the exact same symbol. It is the same word pronunced differently.

The results of the occasional street-use of my art, by myself and the fellow students I've spoken with, have been uniformly positive.

I've interacted with Steve Gartin once or twice. He was (is?) a senior student of Williem DeThouars (who I have interacted with on many occasions)... The man (Gartin) is impressive as hell with a knife.

Some Silat arts (Seni Gayong and, I assume, Mande Muda) have international organizations which track and certify people. But my general experience is that Silat instructors trace a liniage to someone you can validate in the community et-al, and who will vouch for them... often several.

If you want a discussion of one-touch and one-strike knockouts, fel free to start a thread. Since many of them have nothing to do with chi and are quite external, you might choose a different area than "Internal Arts". Let me know where and I'm happy to discuss it (I'm trying to let this thread get back to Akido or die). I will quickly point out one or two things about your posts. 1. In regards to the OTKO material, no one has claimed "that a little tap will cause large movement" (though one could argue that falling down is a large movement I suppose). You are arguing a straw man. 2. If you wish to disavow the concept of light-strike knockouts, I'd suggest starting will Dillman. I believe he's tested and accepted. Wheather his pressure-point knock-outs work in fighting, I'll not comment on... but they do finction. If you wish, however, to disavow the entire concept that someone can be knocked out in one hit, you are facing off against some pretty heady opposition who will talk about many instances of doing just that (Geoff Thompson comes to mind), as well as many instances of that occuring... even in front of a camera (it's not unheard of at martial-arts competitions... and I know at least one Tyson fight that's damn close).

Indonesian Kuntao *is* a Silat. Though the terms vary from group to group, an accurage generalizatoin would be to say that "Kuntao Silat" is a name for any mixed Chinese-Indonesian art practiced in Indonesia (IOW, Silat with Chinese influences). This varies from Pentjak and Poukilan Silats in those very same influences. Beyond that, any blanked term about "Silat" (such as "artistic"), is really a statement made from ignorance, and likely made by someone who has seen some silat styles and improperly generallized. (as a note, there are also southern-Chinese styles called "Kuntaw", but I have little information on them. In answer to your specific question, I've not seen Rossi's style... do you have a website I could see it on?

This is not true at all in physics. It is very common to speculate, and then create rules to explain your speculation. A simple exaple of this is Einstein and dark-matter. It is eqauly absurd to say that I must explain how something works to establish that it works. If this were true, then we could not prove that anything works because at the most basic level, we don't understand the universe. Finally, I have never claimed that others should consider the subject proven "because I say so". I can do what I have said I can do, and have no desire to lie about it so that you feel better. Nor do I have an interest in the massive investment of time and energy to try to establish it on a clinical level as true. You've admitted that you toss around claims that you haven't even thought through, much less established true (the "break the laws of physics" comment comes to mind)... I fear that you are posting fare more emotionally than rationally. That said, I'm gonna discontinue the physics/Randi argument here. It's silly to be doing this on 4 thread. Narrow it down (prob the other really active one), and I'll go round-and-roudn for a while... though you have said nothing new.

Science is not an entity, it is a field of study... it has no ability to observe. Further, laws are not observed... reality is observed and laws are derived from observation and testing of behaviors (unless you are discussing logical laws, which derive from reason and necessity) Please cite a specific law (such as "The first law of Thermodynamics" or "The law of convservation of inertia" or "the second law of inheretence"), which you feel is being defied.

Yes, I have a functiontiong brain and an understanding of scientific method. Are you qualified to determine who is and is not qualified? Really? I thought the reality of our objecive universe was self-sustaining, and laws of physics attempted to explain it... but I'm more curious which, specific, law of physics you feel is being violated. Your inspecificity and unwillingness to cite is very poor debate tactic and shows a rather irrational approach to the subject. I hightly doubt that you are qualified to judge who is qualifieds to interprete data from sensory input... shall we start a transindental discussion on your various worldview presuppositio to determine from whence you derive justification for making such assertions of authority? That is a different question from the one you asked when you made your initial straw-man caraciture of my comment (by adding in a refusal to do what I had not refused to do). I did perform my experiment double-blind. My sampling group, while chosen almost exclusively of non martial-artists, was not random as it contained primarily family and co-workers. I have also not done peer-repeats, which is because I was not interested in proving it to someone else (and as the peers with the skills to perform it were already convinced). Perhaps you now understand my response to "Go get Randi". Why the crap would I waste my time doing something that I believe won't work? In this case, I don't believe that Randi will allow for / accept it. I feel I would need something more emperically concrete (as opposed to statistically concrete), and even then I expect a fight. You sure do make excuses for not putting in the effort to find out for yourself. Why don't you just be honest and say you don't want your beliefs tested because you are afraid of the results?

PaKua is one of the three Neijia (internal arts) of China, and is therefore "kung-fu".

I can very much relate; it was about 10 years before I found anything I considered compelling. I don't know. The actual sensation is different depending on more varibles that I have been able to isolate. Physical injury tends to feel "off temperature" or have something of a static-electric sensation (for me). The sensations would be easy to dismiss as delusional if they did not reliably conform to reality (If I had not tested and found that when I thought I felt something it was there). Which reality of physics would that be? And yes, my first judge of reality is my own observation and reason. Equivocation, I did not mention conditions. Though if you really want to test it for yourself, I would suggest doing what I did... learn how to do it and try it for yourself. Then you can go make a million dollars.

Days worth of my own time and from hundreds to thousands of dollars. (remember, I'm responsable for all costs incurred to bring them out to decide if they want to arrange "real" testing). Did that work well as a tactic in 6th grade?

Yet they fail the same important criteria of impartiality. What I believe, and what someone else who uses the same word belives, are not neccessirily the same. I believe in what I believe in. I believe in it because my own experiences find it reputible. I know it's easier to lump people into groups, but it's less accurate. You'll notice that I brougt them up in response to an inquery. You'll notice I never claimed to have more than claims... though with at least one person here, I've offered to interact and show what I know. I agree, and I don't know in regards to his claim. I believe I just did... though they were more focused on his personal study than "attempts to avoid deciet" experiments. The obvious way to do that is with a scripted person behind a soundproof wall... but the trick will likely not work for several reasons (even assuming the trick is legit). I am a skeptic.

And you just called your own source a liar, as Randi has stated, on his website, that no one has passed pre-testing to qualify. Can you point me to where I have made that claim? I don't believe that I have. Perhaps it is this revisionism that is to blame for the paradoxial position you have taken? I made that claim, though not in this thread. I've been unable to support it and so retract it as unconfirmed. I've claimed the ability to perform a specific task. I have performed experimentation to establish to myself that I could. I do not know of others who have repeated my experiment, though I know of others with this skill. I have been neither vague nor mysterious in my claim. I have offered no explanation for how it works as I have no knowledge of how it works, only how to do it. Again, I doubt it. How would you test for it? How do yo urule out things like "felt the vibration of him moving"? If, indeed, he's working off intent (most people that do this exercise do), then it would be quite possible for someone to fool him by masking intent (which is easy to do unintentionally when "testing" rather than actually wanting to attack). I would imagine that two are easy to rule out... and I recommend that he work on doing it with his eyes closed and no contact... hearing (and worse, feel) can be harder... perhaps with loud background noise and other moving non-attacking people? It would be fun to experiment with. I have an aqaintence who says he can catch a dollar bill without contact while blindfolded... I'm hoping to test his claim in December when he's next in state. I agree that there is a point long before 100 where it becomes silly. After about two I wouldn't bother. Perhaps if we gave a bunch of people a big stick (like a battering ram)... that would let them exert force as a group. (ponders... I wonder how that would turn out)

Without touch actually.. though as I pointed out, I'm accurate but not comprehensive. "In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member of the JREF staff can attend. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases."

Would you care to explain the difference. 1. I make the rule: We will both bring quarters. 2. "We" make the rule, but I won't agree to any rule but "we both bring quarters". What's the difference? It's unclear to me how you can be a skeptic and gullible at the same time. Besides, if he is concerned about it, he needs only discard it in pre-testing: In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member of the JREF staff can attend. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. Not a single person has been "accepted" to actual make rules and test with a 3rd party... all were ignored, at their own expense, by Randi's people. And submitting an application proscribes you from suing him for anything related to it (such as false advertising or fraud). I'm not aware of anything only a trained person can do... same with any other skill. I did not claim that was why he filed bankrupsy... however further investigation fails to corroborate that he was sued over a failure to pay-out. As I said before: when and if I can do that, I most certainly will. I've repeatedly said that anything less than that will get apologized away. You seem to be agreeing with me while arguing with me. I find it a good demonstration of root (though 60 people seems silly). It's easier to sink pressure into you than pressur pulling up (much like it's easier for a 150lbs guy to liff 200lbs than to pull down 200lbs of pressure). Personally, i don't see it as much of a qi demo.

It would have to be absurdly unequivicable... You would essentailly have to move objects (not influnece their movement, but actually move them) through walls... and even then, you may have to sue him. Worse, the "magician's setup" can work both ways. Imagine you can, for example, flip a light-switch through glass at 20ft. How many optial illusions could make it appear a switch was there when it was not? How many different ways could one make a light-switch unswitchable (lock it in place)? He has moeny, fame, and his career as a debunker on the line. Would it really surprise anyone that youwould have to prove *despite* him?

He sets the requirements of proof, and he judges wheather it's been met. Randi does the same. I don't know what Randi would do with something absurdly demonsterable (as I've said, if I can reliably put out candles, I'll go try for it), but anything less than that and I doubt highly it would be accepted. In short, I would have to do what is being done on Hovnid, and take Randi to court.

Somehow, I doubt it. If I could flip switches through glass or something like that, I'd make an attempt. One could apologize what I do away... I certainly did until I tested where I was the one doing it. Usually things which are painful or uncomrotable. strains, sprains, and injuries... that kind of stuff. Off my current GF, my first few months with her, I was pulling off what I can only describe as "emotional baggage", which gave her more than a few physical symptoms. I've had someone who (for example) had a sore shoulder tat I didn't feel anything on... I've never felt someone to have a sore shoulder who didn't really have one. If I think I've managed to make it better through work, I usually have. Sometimes I think I have not succeeded in helping, but have been told that I did.

I have a finger-tip whip. It's pretty damn fast and strong enough to break your typical MA pine board. It's not a gouge, it's a hit, and it's got a slew of targets... but I'd love to pop one in my opponent's eyes right at the beginning of the fight... it's not gonna help his long-term prospects for winning. I think you are far better to go for a hit like that (lots of contact points, works even if you miss the eyes). An eye-rake won't end a fight, but it's can lead to excellent follow-ups that will end the fight, and even if it does not, it hurts his abilities.

To use a clear example, I can sense (I miss stuff, but have not been know to find false positives) physical problems without contact. I can often work and them and can typically tell wheather that work has done good before asking the subject.

And there I am what? If "proving it to me" is the criteria for reality, then chi (whatever it may be) exists. That is to say, some of the energy-work that would fall under the "can't be done" moniker for your average skeptic has indeed been proven to my satisfaction.

It does not prove anything... it was mentioned to set why I would suggest that they would be familiar with one another. Since he has (presumably) direct access to Inosanto, it would be a simple matter to ask Inosanto's opinion of Clear and his material.

My answer woudl involve a cute red-head... though there are a few MA people out there I wouldn't mind visiting, and I hear the beaches are... senic

I like to consider myself a very critical thinker, and I've been called "overly skeptical" by more than one person. It took a lot to get me to change my position on chi [a story I've already retold numberous times], and I remain immensely skeptical of most claims and most people. You study under Inosanto? Ask him if he remembers Richad Clear (I've got a few pics of them together)... that's who I've learned most all of my qigong from.