View Single Post
Old 07-11-2007, 07:36 AM   #1382
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
Re: Baseline skillset

Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
WTF? I already said they call it "chansi" = "silk reeling". But it's not about actually reeling silk.
No, you said "they" don't call it silk reeling, silk winding, silk pulling or anything else, it's chansi.....

Well, yes, it is chansi, but in English they have consistently called it "reeling silk," including Chen Xiao Wang, and all the explanations have been that it is "like" drawing the silk from a coccoon, but you have been trying to turn it around backward and portray it as the motion of the worm secreting silk to make the coccoon. Why do you need to do that? You would rather obscure the real meaning than admit that everything I've said about it has been factually correct. The whole thing is that you don't want to admit that the movement did develop from silk workers in China and that it was refined into a martial method. That's your problem.

Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I gave you the discussion/explanation from Chen Xiaowang (and I said that's where I got it, in addition to other sources) and you continue to fight, fight, fight.
No, you didn't give the discussion/explanation from CXW. You mentioned his name in passing and said that the movement doesn't come from the occupation of reeling silk. But everything I've seen from CXW includes the standard illustrations of pulling the silk from the coccoon: too fast and it breaks, too slow and it tangles. Does that sound like a worm applying the silk or like a worker reeling the silk?

Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Do it your way, since you already know everything.
I'm just going by the research and you are the only one who tries to portray it as the actions of the worm, which is really appropriate.

Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
BTW, the "BaDuanJin", the one everyone calles "Eight Pieces of Brocade" isn't about crochetting, either, as it would seem using your logic. But I'm sure you'd argue it to a fare-thee-well, assuming, as usual, that if you don't know it, know one else could possibly know it, so any guess is a good one. This is completely amateurish.
What's amateurish is your attempt to worm out of accepting the truth. Assuming is something you're especially good at. I haven't guessed at anything so far in the discussion. I've used only long-accepted Chinese sources against your own twisting fabrications.


"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"
  Reply With Quote