Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I see your point. I didn't notice that I changed the qualification.
But to me it's a matter of degree from good to great. I mean, if a great athlete would have great IP, a good athlete would have good IP.

I think the IP / IS of this thread would be called neijin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neijing) in chinese martial arts. Which to me seems a more specific concept than the Taoist or Buddhist qualities you are referring to. So I don't think that talking about these more general qualities will reduce the confusion about the more specific topic of neijin. In my opinion neijin has little to do with refined craftmanship and charismatic virtue.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

tom have you a chance to look back at some discussion on IP/IS stuffs? first and foremost, IP/IS that we are talking about here isn't a spiritual thing or an attitude thing. It's a body, physical skill thing. since it's a physical skill thing, we would prefer the IHTBF approach first to put folks on the same sort of understanding, before intellectual discussion needs to happen. we have discussed with chris about this last year too. same thing happened. he insisted that he know what IP/IS is and that modern atheletic approaches can be better. we said that his knowledge of IP/Is isn't the same as various folks and we also know what atheletics are about, because we aren't some backass country folks who lived in the wood somewhere in timbuktu. also, we have many folks, i do mean many with lots of experience (again we aren't some country pumpkin who didn't know which end are the head and which are the ass), who went out of their comfort zone and challenged their beliefs, and came to similar conclusion. when a bunch of folks, not one, not two, but quite a few, and many have lots of experiences, said the same thing, you might want to stop and pay attention and learn to listen. when folks kept on arguing, then they get ignore, at least by me. when they stop and went out and experienced first hand, then we have some common ground to start a discussion. even the folks who do IP/IS argued among ourselves, but the arguments weren't about IP/IS, but mostly on the how to practice certain things, why we practice a certain way, and so on. why mike sigman focus on certain things? why dan does things differently from different perspective? why ark focus on the frame and does what he does and how does that works? and so on and so forth. we don't argue about IP/IS idea.

btw, i don't know about other folks, but i never claim to be a gentleman. it's actually the opposite. i kinda prefer the barbarian meself, since the blood of genghis khan flow in me somewhere. every now and then i have the urge to take my horde (two boys) on a plunder and pillage trip to the local grocery. and every time my wife would yell at me to get eggs, milk and bread. i don't understand it. what can you do with eggs, milk and bread? ok, maybe french toasts. :)

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I think that many here would agree with this statement, but some teachers will focus more on it than others. Some may have the knowledge, but spend more time on applications, or teaching forms, than explicitly teaching how to power those applications or forms, quite simply because thats a lot easier to teach.

To give an example, you don't have to just see Chen Xiao Wang, at a seminar to feel this stuff. Chen Bing and other Chens will show you similiar stuff, they just might not be as "pure" in the motion which isn't a bad thing since they probably know way more than anyone doing this as an amateur. If anyone out there goes to a Chen tai chi seminar, go to one on silk reeling, not the forms based ones, unless you are more concerned with choreography.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Well, it is always nice to have an opinion.
Ever read Plato's view on this?

The choice here is
1. to see IP / IS as a specific way of training that has no relationship with Taoist martial arts like T'ai Chi Chuan or that at most uses a part of it, like a structure to get the notion of IP / IS across.
I have no problem with this whatsoever - but it does raises questions on what the nature of this IP / IS is. The answer "it has to be felt" has no scientific value whatsoever. Someone must be able to show some scientific equation or some theory with empirical evidence. Otherwise IP / IS might just well be something like phlogiston or a new sort of Mesmerism.

Without a basic theory of what IP / IS is I find it presumptuous to equate IP / IS with Aiki.

2. IP /IS is the same as neijin. Neijin is a Taoist concept. With it comes the whole Chinese Taoist philosophy - if you want to understand neijin, then you will have to get some basic understanding of Taoism. It has nothing to do with one's own opinion or preference.
Just to add to this; Buddhism has criticized this Taoist concept, so to get a more complete understanding it would help if you also get a basic understanding of Buddhism.

If we are talking about Neijin then the concept is fairly easy to understand as there is a solid theory that we can refer to. And any discussion about neijin should therefor offer no problem.

Tom

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Sure, I am fine with this.

I will even go further - I know of some who understand it but refuse to teach it.

Tom

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Sure, ever heard of Sokaku Takeda? :D

Anyway, there have been quite a few definitions of IP/IS over the years, if you search through the forums. There's also a pretty good summary at http://www.internalartsinternational...-internal-art/

For "It has to be felt" - well, it's pretty had to teach anything in a detailed manner by correspondance - try doing it with conventional Aikido and you run into the same problems. The more subtle and complex the skill the harder it is.

Best,

Chris

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Phi,
When you say that IP / IS is only a body, physical thing you do realize that you are getting your feet into a Cartesian mudpool ? Modern top-athletes are moving away from this kind of thinking. And so are surgeons and biologists. The human body is not a machine. You cannot separate the body from the mind / spirit. Science has moved on since Descartes.

I get your frustration - but don't you think that others on this same forum are just as frustrated with IP /IS proponents as they make a lot of claims without being able to back it up with anything else but "it has to be felt" ? Or how about the IS / IP proponents that dismiss almost every teacher in the world because they do not have it or show it? Names have been mentioned or hinted at that had a major influence on the spreading of Aikido - but now we are suppose to accept that they did not understand it or did not even learn anything from the founder? And this comes from people who have never seen or met the founder, let alone train with him ! How frustrating do you think that is?
I could easily go on and on about the frustrations that are at times - but too often - created by the IP / IS proponents. It drives good people away from what otherwise could be an interesting topic to discuss.

And I think it is possible to discuss IS / IP. Unless IP /IS is something from a sci-fi novel. But if it is human, then it should be possible for other humans to recognize it from their own experiences. They may not fully understand it, but they may have gotten a glimpse of it. As an Aikido teacher I find it important that when this happens I assure my students that they indeed got a glimpse of or even more. I do not understand why IS / IP proponents then on this forum tell people they understand nothing and that the IP / IS proponents are the only ones with expertise. It is cult-like behavior.

It is not about claiming to be a gentleman - it comes with the suit.

Btw, Gengis Khan stayed in his cozy tent with a bunch of half dressed ladies while his men were doing all the bloody work. I on the other hand have the blood of Grutte Pier running through my veins - now that was a warrior!

All the best,

Tom

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I, for one, have never made a comment about anyone specific "not having it", as for general comments - well, I've felt almost all of the major players.

I've spoken to many, many students of the founder who stated themselves in no uncertain terms that they didn't understand what was going on or how the founder did what he did, take that as you will. It's also documented in many public written interviews.

I know that it's frusturating, but a large part of the discussion, like Stan Pranin's Iwama discussion, is predicated on the argument that something went wrong in the transmission. Agree or not, it's hard to deny the fact that a strong argument for that can and has been made - Stan Pranin's body of work alone supports it.

Frustrated because someone hasn't met the founder? Sounds like you're making a "it has to be felt" argument to me. :)

Of course, the people becoming "frustrated" haven't met or trained with the founder either, so they have no more basis for their opinion than anybody else, if you follow that argument.

Best,

Chris

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

tom, may i direct you to this thread http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21943 please read through the posts then we can continue to discuss. btw, i had my hands on Saotome sensei and took ukemi. i had more frame of reference than you think. other folks, proponents of IP/IS, have similar experiences with various high level (as in Ueshiba Sr uchideshi) aikido teachers and other martial arts. their combined experiences are staggering. as i said before, when a bunch of very experienced folks said the same thing, there might be some truth in it, at least one should pause and ponder.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Well, there is a contradiction for you. The link that you gave here leads to an excellent introduction of the inner arts. Several of the important concepts are mentioned and even a bit explained.

So it proves my point - it can be discussed.
It can also be described, just as we can describe just about anything in this world.

It proves another point - several proponents of IP / IS do not seem to know these basic concepts (as mentioned on the website) or are even against it. Some have even expressed this clearly in this very thread. At the same time they claim knowledge that nobody else has. That is a contradiction too.

If someone does not understand these basic concepts then a more modest attitude would be more fitting.

Tom

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I think a summery of the argument is something like this.

"IP" crowd-
Without feeling/experiencing something, that you have no previous experience with, you cannot hope to understand it.

Non-"IP", or "IP" curious crowd-
There is no reason to believe that there is something to feel/experience, if you can't give an explanation/proof that there is a something at all.

Let's agree that both of these arguments are fair, because they are. Then let's accept a fact, because of the nature of Aikiweb/the internet, we can never feel/experience what is described as "IP" through this media. So for a fact, we are limited to explanations/examinable proof of the phenomenon. This limits us to formulas, video's, do at home tests/experiments etc.

If you can't experience it directly (which is the case here on Aikiweb), and you want to talk about it, we will have to try other methods. Otherwise we're stuck with- "it's true. no it's not".

I personally would love to talk about explanations, proofs, and things we can examine. That is what is totally possible here on Aikiweb, and since this is the place we all are right now, shouldn't we be looking to do that?

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Nobody ever said that it couldn't be discussed, you're setting up a strawman.

Like anything else, there's a point beyond which that becomes impractical at a distance, especially if the two people in the discussion don't have a common context for discussion.

I don't see how that link proves that anybody understands or doesn't understand anything, you'll have to be more specific.

Best,

Chris

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

And so --- Dan's out giving seminars, Mike's out giving seminar, Ark's out giving seminars, Sam's out giving seminars. Seems to me like the method to try is go find out.

Discussing Mexican food only goes so far, at some point you've got to eat the Taco.

Best,

Chris

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

you guys should continue to discuss the food, that leave me to eat the taco. :D

this almost as good as light bulb joke.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Yo quiero Taco Bulb.

How Many Dogs Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb?

• Golden Retriever: The sun is shining, the day is young, we've got our
  whole lives ahead of us, and you're inside worrying about a stupid
  burned-out light bulb?
• Border Collie: Just one. And I'll replace any wiring that's not up to code.
• Dachshund: I can't reach the stupid lamp!
• Toy Poodle: I'll just blow in the Border collie's ear and he'll do
  it. By the time he finishes rewiring the house, my nails will be dry.
• Rottweiler: Go Ahead! Make me!
• Shi-tzu: Puh-leeze, dah-ling. Let the servants. . .
• Lab: Oh, me, me!!! Pleeeeeeze let me change the light bulb! Can I?
  Can I? Huh? Huh? Can I?
• Malamute: Let the Border collie do it. You can feed me while he's busy.
• Cocker Spaniel: Why change it? I can still pee on the carpet in the dark.
• Doberman Pinscher: While it's dark, I'm going to sleep on the couch.
• Mastiff: Mastiffs are NOT afraid of the dark.
• Hound Dog: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
• Chihuahua: Yo quiero Taco Bulb.
• Pointer: I see it, there it is, right there...
• Greyhound: It isn't moving. Who cares?
• Australian Shepherd: Put all the light bulbs in a little circle...
• Old English Sheep Dog: Light bulb? Light bulb? That thing I just ate was a light bulb?

Best,

Chris

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Sounds like there are 4 people out giving seminars, that's great. But we are HERE, and we can talk about it now. I'm not trying to get out of going to a seminar, I'm just here right now. So if anyone is interested in talking about it, what's the problem with that?

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

There isn't, and we have, but you've been having pretty much the same conversation for quite some time. Time to taste the taco, IMO.

Best,

Chris

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

He's not interested in the taco. He's had expertly made taco's, even made them himself and they're really just hamburgers.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

All you can eat - starting tomorrow in Japan! :D

Best,

Chris

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

It's more like, I've had taco's, make taco's and someone else is describing another kind of taco I don't believe I've ever had. I'm asking what ingredients you use, and all you answer with is," just eat the taco". As soon as I can get to the restaurant, I'll have one. Until then I'd still like to know about the ingredients, and methods of preparation. If you don't want to talk to me about that, cool.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

--But that's just it; we CAN'T talk about it now, because half of "we" (you) haven't experienced it and seem dead-set on explaining it away as something you already understand. I largely despise analogies, but it's something like the difference between Person A taking a sheet of notebook paper and crumpling it into a ball and throwing it across the room. Then Person B takes another identical sheet of paper, folds it into a paper airplane, and launches it across the room. Person A isn't wrong when they say "We both made a piece of paper fly across the room, so it's essentially the same!" but when Person B wants to have a discussion about aerodynamics, drag, and lift, things are going to get tricky for Person A unless someone can introduce them to the difference between their respective methods. We're all starting with pretty much similar bodies, that's true (the sheet of paper). And in the loosest sense we're doing "similar" things, but once you experience and understand the difference between a crumpled up ball and an aerodynamic craft, well....it's difficult to see them as even remotely similar.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Well then, I would say less then half of "we" (the people reading Aikiweb right now) have experienced it. So why even bother to bring it up here? Why not start IPweb and let only people who have had hands on experience join, and then you can all talk there?

I'm not saying to do that, but it's kind of how it feels. Again, if you don't want to talk to me about it, then cool.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

--Aren't you the person who started this thread? :confused:

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Yeah, because I want to talk about it. So, if you don't, because I don't have the necessary information to talk with you about it. Then maybe some of the other members will.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Phi,
I did notice that thread before, but did not follow it as I did not like the discussion. Since you asked I have read the posts. Where do you want to go to with this?

I never questioned anyones frame of reference. I try to address the issue, the argumentation and not the person. I expect the same attitude from everyone else. I do not ask someone's curriculum vitae on Aikido or any of the other martial arts and I expect the same from others.

I am quite sure that the IP / IS proponents have a tremendous amount of experience. But did you somehow get the impression that I was a beginner?

Suppose I would make a list of my experiences, the teachers that I have trained with, the places where I have studied, the many special things that I have experienced.
Do you think that you then should at least pause and ponder when I say something?
Well, I don't. Pause, ponder and consider might be wise advice for my students in the dojo. But here on the internet it is about argumentation. If my argumentation is wrong then I want people to come up with solid counter-arguments. And if and where I can I will try to do the same.

Tom

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

--Well, please don't get me wrong. Your possible lack of experience with IP isn't the reason I'm hesitant to talk about this training. I just really don't like talking about it because I'm still brand new at it myself, and I run a real risk of saying something that might send someone (including myself) off in a wrong direction. I guess my question becomes, given your previous posts regarding this stuff being available in regular athletics and your statement that you already get the basic gist of it.....what exactly do you want to talk about?

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I would like to talk about why anyone thinks something different then normal athletic activity is going on.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I started a few posts and then just deleted them. Chris, you started the conversations out to fail from the very beginning. You stated you have good experience in Chinese internals from a qualified Chinese internal teacher and know Chinese internals.

1. We don't want to talk about your teacher. I admire him, respect him, and given the chance, will train with him. But I do NOT want to drag his name into these conversations which is nearly impossible since you set yourself up as an authority via him. That kills a lot of the conversation.

2. There are hundreds of different Chinese martial arts out there. Even within the Chen lineages, teachers argue about internal methods and IP. Then it gets worse when you start tossing in other kinds of Chinese arts like bagua, xingyi, etc. Training in one lineage and then claiming knowledge of all Chinese internal arts is killing the conversation right from the beginning.

When people try to tell you that IP/aiki is different, you go back to either 1 or 2. Which then, pretty much, kills any chance at moving the conversation forward. Have you noticed how many people have bowed out already in the multiple threads you've participated in? They were trying to get you to open your mind. We all were. Several years, many threads later and nothing has changed ...

Mark

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

--OK, well I can tell you why I think so, but keep in mind it's just my own personal experience and your mileage may vary, and others will have other opinions, and all the other standard caveats. Anyway, here it is:

About three years ago I was fortunate enough to get the chance to meet and get tossed around a bit by a man named Kimura Tatsuo. For those not familiar, he was Sagawa Yukiyoshi's student, and wrote a book on Sagawa after the latter's death. Kimura applied something to me that I had never before felt, and I'll try to describe it. I would stand in any position I wished, and he would place his hands lightly on mine. He told me to resist however strongly I wished, and then he exhaled and I became instantly and startlingly off-balance, and then I was thrown. I'll try to make this as clear as I can via text, which is difficult; throughout the above process, I never felt him actually push me at all. Ever. Not one little tiny bit. There was zero change in the incoming force that I could detect. Nothing. Nada. It felt precisely as I already described. His hands lightly on mine, nothing changed, he exhaled, nothing changed, I was sharply and immediately off-balance, and then thrown. It felt a bit like an unseen hand was pulling my spine up and behind me from somewhere behind me.

For me, that was it. There was no going back after that. Once I'd seen and felt what was possible, everything about my training changed. Everything I wanted, everything I had thought aiki to be had been changed. Kimura had not done any nifty sweeping tenkan movements, hadn't thrown some half-assed atemi to my face to make me react so he could do something, hadn't relied on timing his movement to mine. He had simply done aiki, whatever that meant. And I wanted it. I still do. However, Kimura Tatsuo is not accepting new students currently. That's his business. All I could do is find others who possessed similar skills and try to attend their seminars, and that's exactly what I did and continue to do.

For me, that first step was really the most crucial. If I had never laid hands on anyone who could do it, I'd be skeptical as well. I understand people's skepticism, I really do. I had it myself once upon a time. But once I felt it, I could see without any doubt that it is indeed something different. It's not waza. It's not even good waza. It's not athleticism. It's not being stronger, or faster, or better at timing. It's just, in a word...aiki. It's a thing. Really and truly. Now, the easy thing for people to do is to write off my opinion as being that of a stupid, doddering old man who wouldn't know the difference, and that's fine. You can believe what you like. But I know the truth. It's real, it's a thing, and it's largely missing from most folks' training regimens. And I for one am working to correct that in mine.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

if you read the posts, what information did i supply about my background, especially, when you mentioned that we aren't scientific about our answers?

frame of reference is everything when we discuss topics that are complex. frame of reference allows one to know another what are their experience and understanding. if your frame of reference is algebra and mine is multi-variable calculus, then we aren't exactly match in our understanding. our discussion with chris is that we would like him to go and experience (yes, we said it has to be felt) with some of the aforementioned folks so that we could be in the same frame of reference, then we can have a more productive discussion.

i don't ever assume anyone a beginner. what i mentioned about the experience of IP/IS proponents to let folks know that they aren't beginners who didn't know any better. and they all some how lost their mind and believed in magic. and that they have enough experience to know what is good and what is bad.

if only you then i might pause or i might not. but if there are a bunch of you say the same thing, then i would definitely pause and ponder. it's statistics. higher number of experience folks said the same thing, then the probability of that thing true is much higher than one or two person said it. and when they said "it has to be felt", and one or two person dismiss that, then i tend to go with the folks that said "it has to be felt".

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Hey Brett,
Thank you for taking the time to share your story. The kind of thing you described is what turned lot's of us onto martial arts. As a student, often times your teacher will do something that seems well beyond explanation, and that is what drives us to train. I can remember a time that one of my teachers threw me against the mat so hard that I literally bounced, that was unbelievable. It can be impressive.

Now as a teacher myself, I sometimes do something that will blow one of my students away, they will just keep asking me what it is that I did. These mysteries can be very important. And I would not want to take them away from anyone.

However, whatever made these mysterious/amazing things happen, has an explanation, I would like to talk about the explanations, even if you're not right, even if no body knows what right is. I would like to talk about why you believe something does or does not exist.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Also,
I only sited my training as a reference as to what I've been exposed to. I would love to talk about these issues without concern as to a persons pedigree. I'm sorry if I made anyone feel excluded.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I think Chris has a point, if you are not familiar with something it is overwhelming that first time, think of OODA loop and so on. That is an advantage as long as the other guy doesnt know whats going on. This is important in martial arts. Perhaps the only reason for secrecy.

I've had the luck of meeting a lot of the people in these disussions including Chris Hein. We're not all talking about the same things, though the topic is broad enough to encompass all these point of views. It s is not a waste of time to discuss these matters, and you have to admit there are very good questions that cant be summarily dismissed with a you'd have to be there.

There are undoubtedly more depths than all of us are aware of here. That's cool isn't it?

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

i agreed. personally, i am not dismiss chris idea at all. i believed there is advantage in understanding what sport science has to offer. we need to be analytical about what we do, how we do it, and why we do it. we can't just accept things just because folks said so. damn, i started to sound like sigman. i need to fajin myself a couple of times to get that out. :)

with sport science and medicine, we knew how to make folks stronger, faster, more endurance, and so on. we can produce incredible atheletes that are almost superhuman. however, there are so many things we still don't know about. just look at the topics on fascia which only got a bit of attention recent years and aren't readily accepted by sport science yet. yet, the ancients knew and used it. take accupunture, for example, the ancients had map out the human neural network and came up a way to reprogram it by sticking needles at various network nodes, sort of sticking the needle =1, not sticking the needle = 0 or vice versa; sort of binary code reprograming a computer network. even today medical science, we still have no clue on how to deal with the human neural network. but medical science knew how signals transmit though the neural network, what chemical would affect it, and so on.

ok. i'll stop rambling now. please resume the discussion on IP.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Chris, as I mentioned in another thread. The chinese seem to have a different vocabulary for body usage in athletics vs. body usage in IS, but that aside, pick something and lets discuss it. Maybe we can use a football lineman as our test subject and discuss how they move vs. how someone with IS might do the same things?

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Below are just a few things that came to mind as I have been reading this thread as well as a couple of others lately.

"There are people who, instead of listening to what is being said to them, are already listening to what they are going to say themselves." — Albert Guinon

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply." ― Stephen R. Covey

"It's a rare person who wants to hear what he doesn't want to hear." — Dick Cavett

"There's a big difference between showing interest and really taking interest." — Michael P. Nichols

"Effective listeners remember that "words have no meaning - people have meaning." The assignment of meaning to a term is an internal process; meaning comes from inside us. And although our experiences, knowledge and attitudes differ, we often misinterpret each other's messages while under the illusion that a common understanding has been achieved." — Larry Barker

Greg

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Oh Greg, there you go trying to make sense and stuff... you so silly!

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Yeah, it is something that comes over me now and then, but it swiftly dissipates - all better now :D

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

All this talk of tacos got me hungry. After years of knowing only Taco Bell and thinking I knew what a taco was I found myself in Mexico and had a taco ... exactly the same it was not in the slightest but it was sort of ...

I spent years reading here and there and when I actually felt someone who could do it ... ohhhh, that's what that mean't. Then when I could actually do it, cool. Then I could actually teach some else how to do it ... OK, boyo, that is step one - now onto the next 1000 steps.

Recall this progression? Obsessed with pronography but that first actual experience is way different. Then you meet that one person that takes you way out of you comfort zone with all that freaky stuff - at first it is not comfortable but eventually it's really nice. Then you work together taking your time really working on paying attention and reaching levels you never knew existed. Now when one of you says "strawberries" and the other person knowingly and playfully replies "oh, yeah baby" and those around you are slightly uncomfortable knowing some thing really special and personal just happened and they say "I like strawberries" without understanding they have no idea what you guys are talking about. And the all to real knowing looks you exchange and then place your focus and attention on them and say together "Ooooh, strawberries" and they get all shivery and nervous. Yeah, kind of like that.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

hey. come on now. There's kids here.