Hmm.. lets see if we can stick to the topic okay?
For the record I do not know Dan A in any manner shape of form, nor most of the others debating with you.
Erick is playing games with the ones presenting their side mostly debating the debating style rather than offering anything of substance in reply.
Case in point when Rob or I or anyone who can do some things over these last few years offers a description of movement, Erick then states what they are doing in western terms. When the person who can actually do it states that isn't -it-Erick responds "they don't understand his terms."
He is just now debating with two engineers one of whom is (of all things) a robotics engineer, who himself has felt and can do some of these things and who has felt others who do it, and both engineers are telling Erick he's wrong in his descriptions. He has the audacity to tell these engineers they don't understand the math and physics involved.
Were -he-seeking truth he would accept their rebuttal and move the discussion forward. He isn't. Instead he is telling engineers who are more capable then he due to the combination of both education and hands on experience-that they don't get it. For me it pretty much destroyed any credibility to the honesty of the debate. There is no seeking of a truth here. It’s all defense.
1. They didn't use your terms because they do not believe they apply. To which you have stated they simply do not get it.
Now we see that that is also the "aiki" you are offering me, as I was kindly, and specifically forewarned by others is your habitual penchant when the direction of an engagement is not to your liking. With some care taken in an effort to see to it that it would eventually come to light here -- that has now been revealed for all who have eyes to see it.
2. Here you reverse the actual occurance that took place. You
Erick, told me through your teacher
, what I am not doing and what Aiki is.
Then went on to tell me- I am telling you -what aiki is.
see below. Now you state it was an egging on by design
That is as ugly as others have said your real aggenda was in the first place. And I stated I thought you were a stand up guy. It appears I was mistaken.
Erick Mead wrote:
My teacher has pointed out that Dan is overly focused on the ki of earth and not sufficiently concerned with the ki of heaven. We don't train to resist "pushes." That's not to say that we "can't" -- that is saying that we don't We train to enter pushes. We do however train to aiki age and aiki sage, although those terms are not commonly used.
Both aiki age and aiki sage, in my experience, are related to the ways in which the movement of ki (furitama) is connected (musubi) to that of the opponent. Juji frames aiki in musubi . The nature of that relationship and shape drives the interaction. The rest is dynamic consistency of musubi and furitama at a largely subconscious level. If furitama and/or maai arrive in juji at musubi -- kuzushi results.
So, how's that again? You were the one buddy. I just asked you in no uncertain terms to step up and define my failings and show me in person. And you declined.
You may be very good and you may be very dangerous, and no doubt there is no lack of people who wish to be both, but it is not Aiki -- and never will be. And I don't need anyone else to tell me that because you just showed it to me.
Again you are telling me I do not know aiki, while stating you do. Why won't you or your teacher step up and demonstrate it for me
I do hope this isn't the aiki of passive agressive philosophy you are referring to? You know the, "I'll blend with your daring to question me in person aiki?" You brought up practical uses of aiki; aiki age and aiki sage. Two Daito ryu terms, then told me I do not know them or how to do them
Is this your response to my asking you and your teacher to step up to the assertions you made of my level of understaning-in person. I mean, is this it Erick________________________________?
This saddens me Erick. But thanks for letting me kow where you are coming from before I came to visit. You take just enough care in insulting me, instead of sticking to the points, to fall under acceptable standards for AIkiweb.
Make no mistake, I extended a clear and sincere offer to show you and discuss things-at my expense- during a family vacation, and then buy you dinner after. This is what I get for the trouble? You turn around a kind offer and insult my motives as some "needy act" for extending it? Gees Erick. Come on man, what's up with that?
The offer is now removed.
I think its pretty low of you to take a kind offer and twist it to an insult of me. And I note again, for the record, you impune, and never aplogize. You just go around it and simply ignore the fact that you said it. I have frequently made sure to commend you and apologize if things get personal when they were not intended to be. Which I did just one page back.
I would however, still like to call on both you and your teacher to see what I am missing in my understanding. Notice I am not insulting you- just sticking to the subject of your argument- that you now understand aiki better than me.
To make it definitive and to address your discussion of me. I state for the record that:
I believe neither you or your teacher have any ability to demonstrate an understanding of this topic in depth and will prove -upon testing- to be incapable of demonstrating anything of practical value regarding the use of ki and aiki to me.
I ask again for you to step up and back up your assertions. It can be fun and won't take more than a few minutes. We can use your waza. And Erick
I'll still buy dinner!
Contrary to your quote to Dan A.
I'm a gentleman who is also smilling at my supposed enemy. But not for baring my teeth as you suggest you do- but rather with openess and confidence and a total lack of fear. It is the way to convert them into friends.
How about a response here_________________?