Uechi-Ryu.com

O.K., manners and protocol aside, I had a chance to think about a few things. I would like to relate them before we get the chance to meet.

First of all, I want to thank J.D. for picking up some of the pieces that I would have felt a need to address.

Second, one of the reasons I refused to get involved in a wager (but would rather pay a wager and cut to the chase) is the issue of what this "truth" is and whether your truth is my truth. You got on a slippery slope the other day when you said (and I paraphrase) 'well then that isn't Uechi Ryu.' Hmmmm....J.D. covered this a bit. God bless Shinjo Seiyu sensei and all his disciples but...my experience with the group (that I have great respect for and emulate in some aspects of my art) is that they have a "chosen ones" attitude about what they do. Of course everyone else is not quite doing it right. The Kenyukai has some of the finest martial artists in the world of any style, so they can be excused if they have a touch of arrogance. But....they do not define Uechi ryu. If your major exposure to the style was through this great family, you might be shocked at what else is out there that has received the "blessings" of Uechi Kanei (and what does the name Uechi Ryu mean anyhow??). Enough said. That's why the name and label game may be polluting the issue.

A third and related point is what you do vs what the "Uechi folk" do. Once again, I repeat that this system is based on three very simple and general forms that don't have a lot of specificity in either application or methodology. What I am suggesting is NOT that "Uechi folk" do what you do. Instead what I'm suggesting is a kind of Venn diagram situation. There are a broad array of approaches to generating power in sanchin. Being part hard and soft doesn't mean you are in a fixed place on a continuum, but rather you have the ability (and right) to do some of this and some of that in proportions that suit your abilities and preferences. All I claim is that there MAY be an intersection between what SOME Uechi folk do and what SOME of the Chen folk do. Nothing more than that. And my ego will survive if I am wrong.

Now to the issue at hand - the so-called "internal" methodology. What we are really talking about is not an absolute truth, is it? What we are talking about is what YOU do that you feel is unique. A second, separate issue is whether or not push hands can be of value - regardless of the source of "energy" that you use. Push hands is a means to and end. If two pigs do "push noses" and it makes the mud feel better, well then it has a "reality" for them. Who are we to judge?

Now to something specific from me. I wanted to plant this before we meet. Allow me to conclude that you were not able to articulate the unique way you generate energy. You spoke of a paradigm and I found something that was very familiar and you said "no, that can't be." Well in the end you need to say "Shame on me" for not being able to articulate your paradigm, don't you? As I've stated before, I think the art deserves a better, standard language of communication. I will continue to believe it CAN be done, no matter how naive some may think the notion.

And I will continue to put MYSELF out on a limb and attempt to say what I think you mean. If you want to be Lucy and pull the football away as I get ready to kick it, I can't stop you. I'm proceeding with faith that we both have the proper intent.

Moving on this path, your various comments did indeed prove helpful; I might be approaching an understanding. You spoke of middle body movement as the source of energy, but then mentioned that it involved a degree of relaxation that you had never achieved until recently. This made me believe that we are talking about something that MAY be similar to what the Nakamatsu line are doing. Perhaps not EXACTLY the same - I would never expect that - but similar. I can recommend two places to look in the U.S. The first is Sensei Frank Gorman, who I think teaches in Florida these days. The second is one of his students, Sensei Bob Kaiser, who teaches in the Washington D.C. area.

The best way I can think of to describe the method is to think of the spine and midsection NOT as a solid rod or solid hydraulic mass, but more like a stretched slinky where the wave happens via rotation on the axes. Ever done those experiments in physics where you have two people pull a slinky apart and send "waves" from one person to the next? This is very close to what is done by these folks. If most people who "know" Uechi saw it, it would leave them scratching their heads and questioning whether or not they were doing Uechi ryu. I've had the honor of working with Frank and he showed me how he does what he does. While I may not (yet) choose to do exactly what he does, I can understand and relate. And IS it Uechi ryu? I am told by Sensei Gorman that when Uechi Kanei was (barely) alive, Frank asked him who he should visit that was on the "leading edge" of what was going on in the style. Nakamatsu's name was the one that came up. It is the reason that Frank formed an allegiance with that line. And whose style is Uechi ryu anyhow?

I will use as an example the thrust in sanchin kata. When doing this via the Nakamatsu method, you will note that first you see a movement of the hips driven by the legs, but independent of the upper torso. However that wave travels up through the stretched waist muscles (taking advantage of the stretch reflex) and susequently causes the chest to move. This in turn causes a wave to pass to the shoulders, and that wave goes to the upper arm, which goes to the lower arm, and then to the finger tips. What makes this "wave" so unique is that you actually see each body part start first in the OPPOSITE direction so as to maximize the whipping motion when the wave travels through that point. The amplitude of the power wave increases as it goes through the body because each muscle group is rapidly stretched so that a neuromuscular reflex is triggered. A lot of factors must work in perfect timing to maximize the power effect.

There are several other analogies I can think of. Whereas I spoke before of the standard freeweight squat as one way of thinking of getting energy from the legs through the torso and to the shoulders, the complimentary weightlifting technique here would be the Olympic clean. In the clean you use the stretch reflex in various parts of your body to get the weight part way up, and then ultimately use a plyometric motion to get the hips under the weight and drive it the rest of the way up. This isn't a linear thrust, it is a whole body heave done in stages. I actually do this Olympic lift for a few weeks here and there during the year because of the valuable, generalizable skill it teaches. It's no accident that Olympic weightlifting competitors who do this exercise have some of the best vertical leaps of all athletes (this has been documented). This isn't strength - it's power.

This "wave" phenomenon is applied to other motions in the Uechi kata. And it works very well (if you know how) to receive a violent thrust to your body and send it through the torso and back at the person. It takes lots of practice, but anyone can do it once they are shown how. And most athletes who have been around for a while and break out of the mold will find that they apply some aspects of this ability in their everyday sports techniques. The biggest problem I have with it is that it maximizes for power while sacrificing speed and stealth. It is a choice - one extreme way (on a continuum of methods) to do things.

So, Mr. Sigman, the ball is in your court. I'm willing to offer possible matches pre-meeting as well as demonstrate that I can articulate how things are done. Tell me how close, and see if you can match my precision and language and willingness to commit to a description with equal (or better) effort. I refuse to believe it is not possible to put things in a common language that we can all agree on.

Sincerely (as always)
Bill

Greetings all,

I am the 'wag' that Mike referred to at the close of the previous thread. I watch these discussions with a sort of bemused horror, if you will, based on the experience of seeing familiar patterns of people talking past each other, injecting various emotions, etc. Before I knew exactly what Mike was referring to via personal demo, I refused to believe that the basic mechanics could not be accurately conveyed in writing. But I was reluctantly converted to the view that there is no good way to write about these things when the people communicating have not already met and shown physically what they mean. There is no other practical way. All I can do is offer that observation as a third party who was once in the same boat as the readers of this forum. There is nothing "arrogant" involved, and if you ever do get a physical demo you will encounter the same frustrations in trying to describe things in lieu of a physical show and tell. No one is more fond of pinning things down with exact writing as I am, but it is a complete exercise in futility to do it on this topic.

Note that this does not mean that these mechanics are Super Mystical, or what have you, in fact the basic elements are rather simple, but can be taken to very advanced levels. The simplicity of the basics once you feel them makes it even more annoying that an unambiguous written description is so difficult.

I also understand the concerns with a total separation of internal and external, referring to Bill's Venn Diagram concept. This is another issue that will never be resolved. In my personal view it doesn't make much sense to talk about internal "aspects", as many people do, or arts that are a mix, etc. If my interest is in the internal mechanics, then I am interested in the furthest evolution of the ideas involved. It seems very likely that the ideas of these mechanics were more widespread at one time, and so naturally bits and pieces could be found in many arts. That is historically interesting, but doesn't help you get to learn how to *do* these things. The other issue is that because these mechanics are a way of movement and not a choreography, you can make any movement "internal". There is an old saying in Taiji that you can put Taiji into other arts, but not other arts into Taiji. In other words you can take a form from any system and make it internal by virtue of changing your body mechanics, but it is the mechanics that are important and not the form. This is why Mike's advice was that learning push-hands without knowing the internal mechanics is not very useful. Push-hands is an exercise for training the mechanics while doing a particular choreography. To do the choreography without these mechanics is basically pointless, as there are surely better choreographies already designed for developing the skills and attributes of your system within your system. In fact then, you could learn the internal mechanics, and do Uechi-ryu movements with them. Does this mean that the style is internal? Or that it was *meant* to be internal? At that point it would be impossible to say. Even in the acknowledged internal arts like Taiji the vast majority of practitioners have not developed these mechanics to any great degree. It is too easy to pass down the choreography and not the critical information (this is in fact often deliberate in traditional arts). As the knowledge of these mechanics spreads in the US these things will come up. There appears to be political interest in being "internal", as if this is automatically better somehow. The real issue is whether the mechanics are interesting to you, and if so then style is irrelevant, the only thing relevant is seeking out people who can demonstrate these mechanics. These are people like Chen Xiao Wang, standard bearer of Chen Taiji. Anyone who believes that they know someone in the US who can demonstrate internal mechanics need only check out a high level master like Chen Xiao Wang and others Mike has already mentioned for a comparison.
Getting a demo from Mike is just a starting point, as he will readily admit.

That's about all I have to say, I hope it's helpful (and this WebBBS stuff is a bit cumbersome, so I hope you'll excuse me if I don't volunteer to be a regular). Please don't read anything into this commentary, that's been a big enough problem already.

Best regards,

Pete R.

Bill:

I believe that Erle Montigue describes something like the wave. He uses the analogy of holding an elastic with a rock tied to the other end. The elastic is laid out behind you. You pull the elastic forward (the hip movement) and then snap it back so that the rock is flung past you with the acceleration of the elastic. I have a friend who has begun trying this out so come Saturday I should be able to "feel" if there is something more to look into.

Everyone:

There have been a some good discussions around how power is generated. Limiting this discussion to just the physical (so we don’t lose J.D. in a fit of despair) we should be able to look at what we are doing. Describing physical movements, particularly subtle movements, may be difficult but nothing says that we cannot try. Bill is correct in that it is the lack of common language that makes it difficult not that the movements are too mysterious. I can sympathize with wanting to just demonstrate what I mean.

I think that Mike does have something to offer to this discussion and I hope he keeps trying to express himself. If I may Mike (too late to say no by the way), you have commented a few times that you always run into resistance when you try to drop this on a new bunch of folk. I don't think you need new warnings just a different approach. To be fair you were dragged into this, the old -- everyone stepped back and you had volunteered. However, if your approach has been: I have something far more effective than anything anyone of your style is doing, and there is no way you can understand what I am saying, just believe me ... then I think I might have found the cause of resistance. I'm not saying that we have what you do, I don't know. I know there are some very good people in Uechi Ryu who have looked into many styles. My current teacher is one of the people mentioned to you, David Mott. I do not intend to speak for him but when it comes to body mechanics, you might want to meet him before you discard his knowledge. Furthermore, if you found something that increased your effectiveness greatly once, what makes you think there is nothing else out there. Oh, man I'm lecturing. My apologizes, Mike. I guess I'm trying to say stick around. We can learn from you and you might be surprised at learning something from someone here. Try out Van Sensei's reality forum for another view point on what is effective.

Onward;

If we look at a strike, there are a number of ways to create power. (I believe I went into this on a previous thread.) For myself I am always considering levels of effectiveness. If someone just uses their arm to throw a strike, with enough practice, they can end up throwing a strong strike. But that is not good enough for myself. I want to throw the STRONGEST strike. So I have to look at levels of effectiveness. I could care less if I am called internal or external as long as I am more effective.

To quickly describe what I mean, take that same arm strike and add in some shoulder movement. Now the strike not only has the power of the arm movement but also the added power of the shoulders. It has jumped a level of effectiveness.

Now someone may choose to stop right there because they have been able to drop people with their strikes. Fine by me, but not FOR me. It is also true that, if that same person is very content that the power they are generating by their method is all there is, then they may be closed to learning how to move to another level of effectiveness. I hope to keep an open mind, so that I don't miss something.

Basically I will continue to seek a stronger strike.

This is how my limited use of English might describe what I try to do:

The goal is to hit the person with the earth. (Don’t worry J.D. and Bill I’ll try not to get too woowooowooo in this.) What I mean is that the striking tool (i.e. a shoken), must be directly connect to the earth at the moment of the strike.

Another term I am going to us is fluid connectivity. It is a term an engineering buddy of mine, Rick Bottomley, coined. (Hey if we keep making stuff up we can sell a dictionary.)

There must be a relaxed but aligned path from the earth (the feet) to the striking weapon. The strike is not performed with the weapon, it is merely a tool used to deliver the force, it is delivered with the feet. Pressing or rooting the feet will drive or draw, the force (no mystical force need to be read into this) up from the ground, through the legs, using the hip as a gear to pass it on from the belly through the back and then arms into the striking weapon. Some might just call this anchored but it is more than just that.

None of this movement has to be large movements once the ability to connect the strike with the ground has happened. Once developed, a strike should be able to be delivered from a few inches away.

The strike must be relaxed and delivered in a fluid motion. Yet the body must be connected or aligned properly from earth to weapon. Thus the term fluid connectivity. I think that this is where Mike’s term "ground path" made a lot of sense to me.

However, there is also a little something delivered at the moment of impact (no not a focus of the muscles, sorry I don't do that). I am not sure that I can describe it properly (mainly because I am still trying to learn it rather than the lack of words -- a lack of understanding). It is probably close to an "expressiveness". I don’t think that David Sensei put a name on it but it seems to be similar to what the Chen stylists call shaking power. Or connected in a some way to this wave thing. But since I don’t fully grasp either yet, I cannot do them justice.

Please understand that I am not saying that I can make all this work all the time yet, just where I am trying to head.

Rick

Hello Dr. X,

The format of this forum doesn't lend itself to the easy quote-and-reply format of news or email (and long-winded essays are therefore the norm ) but before I launch into mine I do want to correct a quote you took from me. You stated "So, then, how do we know how the forms should be applied? Pete R. offered the quote that you can find Tai Chi in other styles, but you cannot find other styles in Tai Chi. " While the words are close the meaning is almost opposite of my original. I said the old quote is that you can *put* Taiji into other systems but not *put* other systems into Taiji. Again, the idea of the statement is that the mechanics that are used in good and authentic Taiji can be used for brushing your teeth if you like, but if you put other mechanics into Taiji it is no longer Taiji. While the statement is from Taiji lore and so sounds Taiji-centric, it's worth repeating that it's the mechanics, and not the style that are important. Good Bagua and Xingyi should use the same underlying mechanics, etc., but if you find someone who does Flying White-Assed Monkey style that has mastered these mechanics, he's worth studying with. The probabilities though are that the most demonstrative abilities lie with real masters of the 'big three' internal arts, e.g. Chen Xiao Wang and others mentioned.

And now let me delve into the meat of my long-winded essay. While I can't offer a way to communicate the concepts unambiguously, I did think of an analogy that may help to explain why it's so difficult and show the situation. Let me first apply the caveat that analogies are never perfect, but they can be useful to put across a concept.

Let's say we're talking about music. Mike (Sigman, by the way, not Sigma ) is a classical music enthusiast. We listen to rock
music, and have never heard classical music. Mike is trying to explain what a Beethoven symphony sounds like. Now we have a common fundamental set of notes and Western scales and harmony, just as in martial arts we have a common physical body and universal physiology. But no matter what terms Mike would use to describe the music, we may think we know what he's saying but we never will. If he says the music has crescendos, and gets softer and louder, goes from happy to sad, has a certain tempo and 'flavor', the only thing we can do is fill in things from our own experience. That's all anybody can do with something they don't have firsthand experience with. No matter what descriptive language is used, since there is no common reference for the language (a shared experience), we fill in from what we know. That's just the human condition. And when we do finally hear the symphony, it will not be a mix of rock ideas, it will be a different animal unto itself. Then if we try to explain it to someone else we will have the same thing happen. We have to recognize that without firsthand experience there is a very strong possibility that we do not have a good picture. This is true for most anything. How do you explain skiing to someone who has never been in the snow? (happened to me in real life). Remember thinking about sex when you were a virgin? No matter what you thought of, the real thing was a uniquely different and total experience, right? The greatest poet can hit the nail on the head if his reader has experienced the things he's writing about, but he's powerless to convey an experience through words alone. It's important to realize this limitation and understand that no matter how many words go back and forth, the strong possibility remains that the parties have different pictures in mind. Maybe some elements here and there, but that will be functionally useless without the hands-on.

We can take the analogy a bit further in another direction. Classical music 'purists' may have an attitude that their music is more sophisticated than what we rockers like. I am *not* saying Mike is this way, BTW, though some of you may have imprinted that on the dialogues. However, objectively speaking they would be right. While rock music uses the same harmonies and Western scales, Beethoven is far more technically involved. Who today thinks he is more gifted in music than Beethoven? Objectively there is a level of sophistication and application of music theory that outstrips the rock I like to listen to. I can appreciate that. But I yam what I yam and likes what I likes. In martial arts terms, what people like CXW can demonstrate is a very sophisticated and evolved form of these mechanics. Does this mean they are 'better'? If you are particularly interested in these mechanics then yes, but I certainly don't think they will automatically make you into a super badass. Since these mechanics involve relearning your basic movement, it's much easier to just use natural movement and learn how to box and wrestle, and you will be an ass kicker in a much shorter time. But there is an element of that artistic appreciation involved. And you can do some pretty powerful stuff, so it's not just cool or artistic. The other issue along these lines is the 'desire' to be 'internal'. My personal feeling is that this stems from asian culture and its theories on Qi. I'm a western skeptic, and quite frankly to me the idea of Qi as a demonstratable life-force or other weird energy is a bunch of malarkey until proven otherwise. I.e., the odds are vastly in my favor that neither Mooney nor anybody else will stand up to solid testing of Qi as The Force, and I will take wagers on that. But, it is an interesting aspect of asian culture, and a part of martial arts history. I *wish* it existed. I wish Santa Claus and Superman existed too. Wouldn't life be more interesting? So my take on it is, I wish it were but I doubt it, but it's a neat idea and historically and culturally enriching, just like Santa. Think of the nice traditions and old movies you got to watch this season. I accept it as part of the fabric of martial tradition, and historical the evolution of these mechanics was driven by the Qi model. On a more practical note it is still the language used by many asian masters, so if I want CXW to show me what he does I probably wouldn't say "forget that Qi B.S., just explain it in western terms". Although there have been internal masters who reject Qi terminology as ambiguous and prefer western physics terminology. Getting back to the political aspect of desiring to be internal, I think this also stems from the importance of Qi in asian culture. If my art shows a more overt or sophisticated usage of Qi, you feel like a Qi-less wanker, which is not a good thing. ) So everybody wants to be internal. But if what you really want is to see and learn these advanced body mechanics, style is not the issue, only individual skill. There are many Chinese Taiji men that are not skilled in these mechanics, so again style is not the issue.

Now imagine that you've had this same experience of trying to explain Beethoven a hundred times, and every time the same sorts of discussions come up and people think they know what you're saying, then when they finally hear it they realize they built the picture from their own experience, and the real picture is a whole experience unto itself that they were not able to envision with near the accuracy they thought they did. You might be tempted to joke about wagers too.

Anyway I hope that gets across the general picture, and helps explain *why* these things have to be experienced firsthand.

Pete

Hello,

I agree that analogies are imperfect and such discussions can degenerate into finding where the analogy does fit. Hence the initial caveat that the purpose is merely to illustrate. A finger pointing to the moon, as it were.

As to your question "how does any one really know that "putting" another style into Tai Chi no longer makes it Tai Chi?", again the point is not to read it literally. Forget about style. I know it's hard, because in martial arts style is practically a religious issue, but the style is not important. If you do the internal mechanics, you can put these into whatever motion you are doing. If you take the motion and do it without the internal mechanics, it is no longer internal. That is the point that the saying tries to illustrate. It clearly assumes Taiji done internally vs Style X done without the mechanics. The actual styles would be irrelevant.

The style issue is simply a dead end. It goes back to your comment (or was it Bill's?) about 'original intent'. Once learned you could rationalize the mechanics into any art, and again the issue of what belongs in a style 'originally' or what may or may not have been modified or lost is moot. I think the notion though that all styles contain everything is a bit silly. Nowadays with the advent of the UFC and prominence of grappling methods, people will look at a form they've been doing for years and say "aha! this move right here could be a double-leg to a rear naked choke!". That's just the quasi-religious silliness of martial arts, IMO. If you look hard enough you can find anything in anything, but why bother. If you wanted to learn the hypothetical double-leg to choke move your best bet is to find someone who does it really really well and learn it from them. Frankly I find style issues to be a complete and utter bore, and once you get away from the dead-end notion that a given style is 'complete' except for the failures of the practitioner, life is much easier. For example it's no accident that Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu has no internal mechanics. The people who founded it and teach it don't know the mechanics, never did, probably never will, and couldn't care less. No shame in that, they do what they do very well.

As far as Mike making assumptions about what people know, that's a shoot-the-messenger kind of thing because of his delivery. Maybe he was annoyed at a private email answered in good faith wound up on a public bulletin board. Not my concern really, Mike can speak for himself. But if you look at it objectively, it's a binary question: do you know *exactly* what Mike is talking about? How could you? If you are not 100% sure that you have already experienced the very same thing someone is talking about, the only logical answer is "no". The only way to get a definitive answer is a personal show and tell, end of story. Any terminology you care to use must first be defined by a physical demo, or it's impossible *not* to miscommunicate.

To Bill, Chen Xiao Wang does regularly tour the US, as do other recognized masters. I don't know whether neijia.org posts any schedules, but people who host seminars are on the neijia list and can probably provide info on who is going to be where, and when. I don't know what else I can add to what's already been said. If you think there may be something of interest for you in seeing someone demonstrate these mechanics, then a meeting is worth pursuing. Best of luck in all your training,

Pete

Anthony,

The phrase "if you look hard enough you can find anything in anything" implies that you can find it even if it's not really there.
I try to maintain an objective mindset, but that's a personal choice not universally shared in the martial arts.

Pete

Thanks so much, Pete R.

I have just a few brief comments.

My major frustration with this whole endeavor has been the following scenario:

1) We ask for clarification

2) Mike says "this is the way it is..."

3) I say "I can relate to that. I hear you say ..."

4) Mike says "No, you can't possibly understand!"

5) Go back to #1

This endless DO loop, anaplerotic cycle, Sisyphian dillemma, whatever, has been the source of the frustration and the cyberheat. I continute to believe it was not necessary in many cases. The more either gentleman actually volunteered information (rather than react to what we said), the more rational and believable they appeared. This is NOT supposed to be bad!!! If you read very, very carefully, you will find that Mike and especially Pete have written exactly what I have expressed in several posts.

Does this mean that there is nothing they do that we don't already know? Not necessarily. My cup ALWAYS has room for more, thank you. I (we) do not know it all - PERIOD.

My point in past posts - points that I believe Pete just agreed with - are:

1) The forms and the styles exist independent of the way they are done (the way you generate energy).

2) Because of #1, it is indeed possible to practice Uechi style in an "internal" (whatever that means) fashion, just as it is possible to do taiji in an "external" (whatever that means) fashion. I think Pete just agreed with that.

3) All should just relax and exchange information.

And finally, I would like to meet Chen Xiao Wang one day. PLEASE let me know when he comes in the country and where. A man like this cannot accomplish what he has without having great abilities.

And I thank BOTH Mike and Pete for teaching me much (both on and off line here) about their world. I continue to have productive dialogue with Mr. Sigman.

And I repeat my assertion (go ahead, call me naive) that nothing cannot be adequately described given enough time to assimilate and appreciate. This ability CAN be tranferred from one to the next, right?? Communication takes many forms. It is incumbent on all who teach the arts to learn to be better teachers. That is my challenge to everyone here. Call me foolish, Mike, Pete, but that's my belief and challenge.

O.K., O.K. ..... I'm off the soapbox.

Sincerely
Bill

Let me get this straight. There is no mysterious force involved here, no chi. This is a physical movement. It may be a complex or subtle movement, but it is a physical movement.

If the above is true then, if there is an understanding of the movement, it should be able to be described. I have an engineer friend who is often exploring different ways to generate power. He can describe to me what he means, even if I haven't done it before. He can describe the movement or go into an physics breakdown of what he means. Sometimes it takes time to get what he means, and we go back and forth a bit, but we get there.

So I have some real problems with the approach that has been presented to this forum. We have been told that there is a far more effective method of generating power than what anyone else has. We have been told that the person who understands how this method of generating power cannot explain it in words. Or rather there is no way anyone on this forum has the ability and basis to understand it. Therefore we must all just accept the fact that we are all inferior, so much inferior that we cannot even grasp what is meant from the explanation.

Sorry, I find this hard to swallow. Maybe there is something there. But something that cannot be explained? Something that the people on this forum who have years of experience in many styles of martial arts can never understand?

We should just accept this as fact and .. and what? Stand back in awe. In fact before there is a post, it should carry a warning that there is no way we will ever have the ability to grasp it. (Why post then? Dragged into this forum unwillingly or not, it seems this has been done before.) I fail to see even the point of these posts if there was never going to be an attempt at communication.

And as for the arrogance of the classical music lover ... arrogance is arrogance, it is never admirable.

So, a number of people have made posts about generating power. I am sure others could also post how they generate power. I am also sure with discussion and clarifications many would understand what they meant or at least have a grasp of the idea. Therefore, forgive me if I do not find the fault of lack of understanding with the readers but rather with the writers.

I truly felt that Mike had something to offer to this forum. As I am always looking to explore new ways I really wanted to hear what he had to say. But it seems that the written word is not a medium that he can use to do this. So I have to ask why then he takes part in it all. To flaunt this supposed effectiveness before his inferiors? Forgive me for the harsh conclusion, but I am disappointed. I thought that this would be a productive topic.

So it appears that Mike's original estimation that there really was no point to him posting was correct. A shame.

Rick