That's nice, but you don't address at all the fact that I've done this (well, some of it, since I only spent an hour and a half and was trying to give a thumbnail of the more interesting bits) in front of well-credentialed group of physiologists, kinesiologists, and so on. I get out and demonstrate, research, look for holes in the logic, etc, just to be sure that I'm not spouting malarkey; you critique from your keyboard.
OK, I'll bite once more. What the hell. This is a perfect example of the kind of fuzzy rhetoric that shows a complete lack of basic thinking skills I was pointing to. To start with, this is an argument from authority. Google a logical fallacy site and look it up. The argument is made all the more flimsy by the fact that these credentialled authorities remain nameless. Things really take a dive from there. What does the fact that you did something impressive in front of some nameless authorities prove? I'm sure they were impressed. I'm even willing to believe they had never seen anything like it and were mystified. So what? Did you write out explicit propositions on a blackboard that were directly contrary to basic principles of neuroscience and get them to agree they were true? That's what we are talking about here.
Even then, it would still be a fallacious argument from authority, but it would be one that would carry some small weight. Find me one credentialled authority that is willing to claim that doing a few basic resistance training exercise sessions for 20-30 minutes two or three times per week will interefere with the performance of any kind of movement skill whatsoever, other than movements extremely similar to the resistance exercises themselves, and sign his or her name to the statement. One. Then you will at least have a halfway credible-sounding fallacy. If you got that much, maybe you could also get this authority to explain why, and then we'd really have something.
You seem to have this simple-minded, irrational mindset that anyone who disagrees with you on any point no matter how particular, disagrees that whatever you are doing in terms of internal skills is good or real or something, and then it's all about a referendum on the value of internal skills. You can't simply wipe out all opposition to every particular claim you make by asserting the goodness or realness of your practice, or dispel all counterarguments by showing someone something impressive.
It's all colossally beside the point. I have no opinion about most of the 'internal skills' debate. You have made very specific claims about very specific things that you obviously don't understand anything about. It's clear that you don't even understand the epistemological issues involved in making such a claim, or how you would go about validating one. What you have are hunches based on your own anecdotal experience, but nothing remotely approaching proof or even a half-assed attempt at conducting a disinterested study. No control group. No placebo group. No account for stastical significance. Have you ever even heard of observer-expectancy effects or subject-expectancy effects?
You've got nothing but arguements from authority - mostly that of your own judgement. This might be sufficient basis for teaching people how to do some internal skills, but it is miles away from sufficient basis to be making anti-scientific claims regarding something as specific as whether or not someone spending less than 1% of their time doing an activity interferes with doing another unrelated one. While you are Googling the logical fallacy page, look up 'unwarranted generalization'.