Re: Ownage

"Renli" <oliver.richman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1187709110.048152.226640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
David L. Burkhead wrote:
Renli wrote:
So what "original point" are you talking about? Goldberg, GDS,
Shuurai, and now I guess you have attempted to change the subject so
many times.. it's a laugh riot to hear you say I have not answered the
"original point".

The original point that I made here: that not responding would be
not
responding.

Oh, I see. Okay. Well, I can see that, let me respond:

I never said anywhere in this thread I wasn't going to respond to mark
goldberg.

I said I wouldn't "take time" responding.

And you lie.

I think that's pretty clear, esp. after these two clarifications :)

Although I do see your point, I suppose, you are right.. not
responding is, indeed, not responding.

And then he replies again, accusing me of being unable to stop
replying.

And he's right.

Is he? You have no evidence. In fact the evidence supports my case. I
rarely if ever respond to Mike K. and I take great pleasure in
occasionally reminding him of that, and saying little if anything
else. Yet he posts reply after unanswered reply....

As if I ever said I would in this thread. I might as well
accuse you of being a democrat, or a republican (or whatever you
actually are) - a useless accusation if you never asserted yourself as
being something else, ehh?

So you admit to your OCD? That's good. Recognition of the problem
is
the first step toward getting treatment.

Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean you aren't being
watched, David.

I guess that was another Airport City.

"As Martial Taiji players we love to believe that we are studying the
supreme ultimate, but how well would we fare against someone who has
trained an equal amount of time in Praying Mantis? If you take me as
an example, I think I'd probably get destroyed."

http://renli.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/putting-the-quan-back-into-taiji/

Now why in the world would I bother running over someplace else when
you
have yet to establish a shred of credibility right here?

I don't know, and TBH it suits me fine, David. You don't belong in a
serious IMA discussion anyways.

And yet, you cannot recognize blatant fraud?

See my previous post. Now let's see if you can recognize where the
fraud lies :)

The fraud lies in the "master" who has students jumping all over the
place and you can't see it although everyone else who watched the video can.
Instead you present yourself as being able to see some miraculous secret
movement that only your Mad Skilz allow you to see. It's only when you are
taken by the hand and led through the specifics of a particularly egregious
case do you see the willing accomplice issue.

Imagine were someone to
post a video of David Copperfield levitating one of his assistants and
labeled it "ownage" in a martial context--and then argued as if it were
some
kind of martial skill even after someone came along and showed you the
wires.

That, in essense, is what you did.

Two facts: I agreed with evins. two, no one spoke to the li video.

So no, I didn't.

All of these "tricks" that folk, including you, show, whether
"unbendable arm," or "immovable body," or "hurling people around with
light/no touch" are no more than magic tricks--the same thing as any trick
by Copperfield, Henning, or Penn and Tellar. They certainly aren't "ownage"
in a martial context" (and I'd still like to know what you thought was being
"owned"), nor are they "mindbending"

But I'll tell you what. You tell me what Newton's Third Law has to
say
about the idea of shooting someone and having the bullet throw them
across
the room on impact--correctly--and we'll talk.

I'm sorry David - I am unable to participate in that discussion.

But you do that all the time: somebody asks you a question yet before
you answer you insist that they answer one first, supposedly to determine if
the person is "qualified" to discuss the subject. What's the matter is
sauce for the goose another man's poison?

In this case, _you_ were the one who started "that discussion." In case
you've forgotten, the question you referred me to was about whether the
Empire State Building would push back if someone pushed against it. That is
a _direct_ application of Newton's Third Law. However, considering mistakes
you've already made about how it works, it seems reasonable to see where
your understanding actually lies--not to determine whether you're
"qualified" for an answer, but to see how I'm going to have to break it
down.

As
I've said before, I have little interest in physics of that kind, in a
"let's apply equations" sense.

_You're_ the one that brought it up. _You_ asked the question of
Shuurai that you just asked me to answer. _You_ brought up the pushing and
pushing back.

We're not talking about "let's apply equations" we're talking about probably
_the_ most fundamental basic foundation in the entire field, and everything
that derives from it.

Anytime you want to talk about taiji
tho, maybe we can work together, and come up with something that fits
both theories. That's kind of what I was hoping for, after all, in
this.. a taiji thread.

So far you have established no evidence that you know any more about
taiji than you do about physics. This is Usenet. Claims are a dime a
gross--and that only in times of extreme inflation. A blog is no more
evidence than that.

That said, you could say the same thing about my claims of knowledge of
physics, so let me provide a bit of evidence for my own background:
http://www.asmicro.com/Corporate/burkhead.htm

That's from the "about us" section of the company website where I work.

Here's some more:

http://www.asmicro.com/Corporate/DC-Pubs.htm (List of my boss's technical
papers. Note that I'm listed as a co-author on a number of them).
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/02/aluminum-applications.html (I've also been
involved, peripherally, in commercial space activities)

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp/gnewsissues/070299/070299.htm (Okay this one's
only included as humor. The "David L. Burkhead" here is not me.)

http://www.islandone.org/ (More involvement with private/commercial space)

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/toc.asp?thisyear=1991&thismonth=10
(Non-fiction article on science and technology--I was paid fairly nicely for
this one)

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR98/BAPSOFS98/abs/S500.html (Presentation
given before the American Physical Society)

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/pdf/158749main_w19990719.pdf (Yes,
Virginia, I really am a rocket scientist--or was, at any rate.)

Note that none of these are things I say about myself, but things that
others have to say about me. That should establish that I am at least
somewhat knowledgable of physics in specific and science/engineering in
general.

Now, can you come up with similar set of supports for your supposed
knowledge of tai chi and/or other internal martial arts?

--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dburkhead@xxxxxxxxxxx "While we live, let us live."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://www.coldservings.com -- Back from hiatus!
Updates Wednesdays



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ownage
    ... The original point that I made here: that not responding would be not ... wonder if you are worth the time, David. ... finding some explanation which relates to physics. ... golf swing... ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: OT- Grounds For Disbelief
    ... And his evidence is sparse and without much merit. ... I posted once a story I read in the papers in Israel, whilst standing on the spot where David met Goliath. ... the excavation of ancient artifacts, and the interpretation of those artifacts. ... The conquest, settlement and united monarchy (Saul, David and Solomon) are mere "propaganda" to quote Philip Davies. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... been seen, you are a brain dead idiot, plain and simple. ... understanding of physics. ... Care to present evidence that Maxwell's ... to plainly see that radiation is *not* caused by resonance. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... been seen, you are a brain dead idiot, plain and simple. ... understanding of physics. ... Care to present evidence that Maxwell's ... to plainly see that radiation is *not* caused by resonance. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... Today, because of the evidence, no one could ... shown to be simple 3-D math. ... accordance with the equations of relativity. ... But we know that space exists and even in classical physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)