> On Feb 29, 12:54 am, "David L. Burkhead" sff.net> wrote:

>> nospam.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:47c6c4dd.567136937@news.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>>

>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:32:10 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
>>> sff.net> wrote:

>>

>>>> Biomechanics, physics, and psychology cover it. There is

>> you,

>>>>or anyone else, have presented as evidence of "chi" which cannot be
>>>>explained in the terms of those fields.

>>

>>> yea? So fucking what? Your argument is pathetic. You are so against
>>> chi as a concept that you would go to any great length to define it as ...

>>Not one single person has ever shown chi to exist.

>
> utter and complete nonsense.  Of course chi is known to exist.  
> The word chi wouldn't exist if the concept didn't exist all these
> years.  Pick your translation.  ki.  Qi.  Bob.  "in the groove".  The
> word exists because the concept exists.  Are you implying that because
> you aren't capable of understanding that something can't exist?  

>>  Not one single
>>person has ever demonstrated a way to measure chi.

>
> of course they have.

> h...@nospam.org wrote:

>> ummmm, okay, ya got me there....... score one for the infidel.

>

>>>> it's easy to tell who has never experienced chi. =A0Because you really
>>>> need to believe it doesn't exist. =A0If you spent half the time trying
>>>> to cultivate yours then you wouldn't have to try so hard to deny it.

>>> We don't have to "deny" it Hal. There isn't a shred of evidence to
>>> support it.

>

>> ah, but there is..... 2000 years of Asian internal arts prove it is
>> there. What, you think those dudes been making pancakes or something
>> all these years? Leave that to Bob's House of Pancakes. 10 million
>> little Chinese dudes can't all be wrong.

>
> 2000 years of Asian internal arts? prove it Hal, name one!
>
> I'll help you out, tai chi is about what 2-3 hundred years old.
> and all of the philosophy surrounding tc,, is maybe a 100 years old!
> ...

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:09 -0800 (PST), Shuurai
> hotmail.com> wrote:
>

>>

>>>>You don't understand the terms you're using.

>>>

>>>>Again.

>>>
>>> if you ever tasted an orange you would have no doubt they exist.

>>
>>You and Ollie both have some kind of thing going with oranges... In
>>any event, the difference you are missing is that an orange is
>>something tangible. It's an object. It's visible, it has mass, and
>>it takes up space. The fact that one believes that an obviously real,
>>solid object exists has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they
>>should believe that something intangible like 'chi' exists.
>>
>>Not one single person has ever shown chi to exist. ...

>

>> No, you just said you were a former practitioner. And we all know you
>> do judo now.

>
> you have this bad habit, to shoot from the hip, without ever having
> facts at ur disposal?

>

>>>Not one single person has ever shown chi to exist.

>>
>> utter and complete nonsense. =A0Of course chi is known to exist. =A0
>> The word chi wouldn't exist if the concept didn't exist all these
>> years. =A0Pick your translation. =A0ki. =A0Qi. =A0Bob. =A0"in the groove".=

> =A0The

>> word exists because the concept exists. =A0Are you implying that because
>> you aren't capable of understanding that something can't exist? =A0

>
>The word "unicorn" exists; does that mean that unicorns are real?
>Nobody is denying that the concept exists; obviously it does. It is a
>visualization technique, nothing more.

> Renli wrote:

>> "a sophisticated methodological falsification of chi, where by "Falsified
>> theories are to be replaced by theories which can account for the
>> phenomena which falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater
>> explanatory power" (ibid)."

>
> "ibid." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think
> it means.

>nospam.org> wrote in message
>news:47c6fbbf.581187281@news.newsguy.com...

>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:09 -0800 (PST), Shuurai
>> hotmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>>

>>>>>You don't understand...

>>The word "unicorn" exists; does that mean that unicorns are real?
>>Nobody is denying that the concept exists; obviously it does.  It is a
>>visualization technique, nothing more.

>
> it is a visualization technique to enable the performance of a task
> with a goal in mind.  What is that task and what is the goal?

> the concept is not just in the visualization.  It is in the result.
> You define the ends and the means you will understand.

> just so you know, The Force is very strong in my family.

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:51:49 GMT, "David L. Burkhead"
> sff.net> wrote:
>

>>nospam.org> wrote in message
>>news:47c6fbbf.581187281@news.newsguy.com...

>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:09 -0800 (PST), Shuurai
>>> hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>

>>>>>>You don't understand the terms you're using.

>>>>>

>>>>>>Again.

>>>>>
>>>>> if you ever tasted an orange you would have no doubt they exist.

>>>>
>>>>You and Ollie both have some kind of thing going with oranges... In
>>>>any event, the difference you are missing is that an orange is
>>>>something tangible. It's an object. It's visible, it has mass, and ...