WOTT - Iron Shirt
Rabid Weasel
What exactly is "Iron Shirt" training anyway and how useful is it?
I mean, I know what the ChopSocky flicks say it is; invulnerable skin,
etc. But what is it exactly.
And just how useful is it anyway. Doesn't look much like it'll stop a
knife or keep you from being choked out. Or does it?
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Herbert Cannon
maybe? Icky.
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
"Rabid Weasel" <lawson@NO19761SPAM+dayton.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.10.24.02.15.03.121047@NO19761SPAM+dayton.net...
> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> What exactly is "Iron Shirt" training anyway and how useful is it?
>
> I mean, I know what the ChopSocky flicks say it is; invulnerable skin,
> etc. But what is it exactly.
Iirc it's a way of toughening the body to withstand impact. Methods include a
variety of stances, getting abraded by various materials or having them stacked
or applied to the body and the infusion of herbs to aid the process.
> And just how useful is it anyway.
Depends who you talk to. Shaolin guys extol its virtues. I remain unconvinced.
Doesn't look much like it'll stop a
> knife or keep you from being choked out. Or does it?
No, it wouldn't help in these circumstances at all, and any claims to the
contrary would require some supporting proof.
No doubt, legions of supporters will say it's all what it's cracked up to be, but
when asked for said proof, will only tell tales, and that's hardly the proof any
reasonable person would seek.
Cue Xiaou2 in 3...2...1....
--
GDS
" Let's roll! "
theoriginaldimi
Rabid Weasel schreef:
There's only one decent sentence that uses "Iron" and "Shirt" and it is
:
"Iron my fucking shirt, bitch".
Dimitri
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
"theoriginaldimi" <theorig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161674566.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Upcoming.....Dimi's new book "Marital Bliss My Way - or Fucking Else!"
theoriginaldimi
GreendistantNOSPAMstar schreef:
Iron Shirt protects people from Dim Mak. No Iron Shirt practitionar has
EVER been killed by a Dim Mak strike, not even by a Dim Mak to the Iron
Crotch.
That by itself should be enough proof for all non-believers.
Dimitri
Fraser Johnston
"GreendistantNOSPAMstar" <Greendis...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:hrj%g.52141$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Including the amazing chapter on what you can tell a woman with 2 black eyes.
Nothing. You have already told her twice.
Fraser
theoriginaldimi
Fraser Johnston schreef:
Damn right. I'm fucking ZEN like that!
Dimitri
Rich
> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> What exactly is "Iron Shirt" training anyway and how useful is it?
>
> I mean, I know what the ChopSocky flicks say it is; invulnerable skin,
> etc. But what is it exactly.
Mostly training the body to take blows. Useful to some degree, way
overhyped though; Ali did the same with standard boxing training for
the rumble in the jungle.
> And just how useful is it anyway. Doesn't look much like it'll stop a
> knife or keep you from being choked out. Or does it?
Unlike a lot of TMA claims, this is a case that has been tested and
documented. A little historical study of the Boxer Rebellion will
reveal precisely how effective Iron Shirt training is against firearms.
For a quick summary, just look at who won.
;)
Rich
Wayne Dobson
>
> "Rabid Weasel" <lawson@NO19761SPAM+dayton.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.10.24.02.15.03.121047@NO19761SPAM+dayton.net...
> > Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
> >
> > What exactly is "Iron Shirt" training anyway and how useful is it?
> >
> > I mean, I know what the ChopSocky flicks say it is; invulnerable skin,
> > etc. But what is it exactly.
>
> Iirc it's a way of toughening the body to withstand impact. Methods
include a
> variety of stances, getting abraded by various materials or having them
stacked
> or applied to the body and the infusion of herbs to aid the process.
>
> > And just how useful is it anyway.
>
> Depends who you talk to. Shaolin guys extol its virtues. I remain
unconvinced.
>
> Doesn't look much like it'll stop a
> > knife or keep you from being choked out. Or does it?
>
> No, it wouldn't help in these circumstances at all, and any claims to the
> contrary would require some supporting proof.
Just say that you have no clue. It would save time. It appears to be a BJJ
thing, where you expect others to provide proof of their assertions, while
you make your pronouncements with no evidence, whatsoever.
> No doubt, legions of supporters will say it's all what it's cracked up to
be, but
> when asked for said proof, will only tell tales, and that's hardly the
proof any
> reasonable person would seek.
Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt training
doesn't help at all, against a knife.
> Cue Xiaou2 in 3...2...1....
Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Instead, you have me.
--
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"
theoriginaldimi
Wayne Dobson schreef:
> Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt training
> doesn't help at all, against a knife.
You have iron Shirt, I havea knife. Let's meet and settle this.
The pleasure would be all mine.
Dimitri
xiaou2
news:1Wh%g.52090$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
Heh, I rarely pop on here.. and low and behold, GDS post
a pretty darn accurate post about a non BJJ subject?! Bravo! :)
In addition, I will add, that Iron Shirt also uses slow moving
meditation like forms simular to that of Tai-Chi.
This includes Advanced heavy deep breathing, chi movment, advanced
awareness, concentration, feeling, and muscle strengthening... and more.
Ive not tried to really put these ideas into words.. so I may
get this a bit off.. but Ill try anways..
My theory is that its like an Isometric excercise.. however,
with the constant deep breathing.. it sorta changes things...
If you hold your body tense.. and begin breathing long deep
breaths consistenly at a good pace.. you may notice that your
bodys limbs and other areas expand a bit. The increased pressure,
and maybe the actual overly rich oxegen content in the blood.. may
cause this..? Anyway, the effect really adds to the overall
stength and absorbancy of the structure. A lot probably from internal
density being filled with rushing pressure blood.
The guess is that the pathways of flow may gain in diameter, and
or just work better overall (smother flow, or blockage cleared),
after doing these ISO drills with that kind of breathing.
The Mind connection, from doing the drill over and over, may
cause an internal subconsious connection... which may tighten
in the best ways, at the right split-second, to help to absorb
damageing forces much better than most who are not trained
simularly.
Overall, the effect is greater density of Tissues, Bone..etc.
Which can widthstand much greater forces. Forces that once
caused pains, become laughable meaningless thuds.
Theres so much more Im leaving out or not really thinking of
due to time restraint.
Such as ability to use entire body to absorb forces rather
than just a single muscle or small area.
Also, as said before.. typical 'conditioning' does
yeild higher density of tissue fibers and higher density bones.
Ive not heard anyone saying Iron Shirt would stop a knife!
As said here, its more meant to widthstand "small area"
"Deep" pressure point strikes (Dim Mak), and wide area
heavy force strikes.
Tho Ive seen demos of dull spears pressed against the neck tho..
and it does take quite a good deal of strength and density
to keep it from causing damage internally.. or even an
external wound. (This demo may only be done in Tai Chi.. however,
its an example of pretty much the same thing.)
(it may slow a knife down a little.. but it aint gona stop it!
esp if its a stab -vs- a slash)
Choked out? Doing these drills may give you an increased
lung capacity and overall higher oxegen carryiing ability within
the cells/blood. This may help to give you more time.. but surely
isnt going to stop the effect competely. Since the neck will
ballon a bit more than normal, is stronger and less able to
be compressed.. it also may help in that repect too. Tho I Imagine
typical training in BJJ already does that because they are always
chocking each other while charged up.. which is almost the same thing.
Tho Ive not offically done more than one Demo of
Iron Shirt mediation.. Ive done very simular trainings
myself. I can say, that it is VERY beneficial. With it,
Ive tooken hits from guys twice my mass without pains/issues...
(returned blows that they couldnt deal with hehe :)
Its means can be attained many ways other than the official ones..
however,Im not for sure if the official trainings would produce
better overall resuslts. Most likely so.
Many people involved in the arts might not notice
effects of Iron shirt training so much right away.. as they
have conditioned thier body in other ways which lead to
simular results. Whereas a complete newbie would hugely
feel the differences in a short timeframe. However,
I believe that any artist would eventually feel the
effects if they stuch with it.. and would gain in
overall abilities should they develop it with enough
time.
Mike
> Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt training
> doesn't help at all, against a knife.
Please provide proof that there is not an invisible armada of flying
saucers hovering around the earth ...
-Mike K.
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
"Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
news:RVk%g.64322$3D1....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "GreendistantNOSPAMstar" <Greendis...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:1Wh%g.52090$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Rabid Weasel" <lawson@NO19761SPAM+dayton.net> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.10.24.02.15.03.121047@NO19761SPAM+dayton.net...
>> > Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>> >
>> > What exactly is "Iron Shirt" training anyway and how useful is it?
>> >
>> > I mean, I know what the ChopSocky flicks say it is; invulnerable skin,
>> > etc. But what is it exactly.
>>
>> Iirc it's a way of toughening the body to withstand impact. Methods
> include a
>> variety of stances, getting abraded by various materials or having them
> stacked
>> or applied to the body and the infusion of herbs to aid the process.
>>
>> > And just how useful is it anyway.
>>
>> Depends who you talk to. Shaolin guys extol its virtues. I remain
> unconvinced.
>>
>> Doesn't look much like it'll stop a
>> > knife or keep you from being choked out. Or does it?
>>
>> No, it wouldn't help in these circumstances at all, and any claims to the
>> contrary would require some supporting proof.
>
> Just say that you have no clue. It would save time. It appears to be a BJJ
> thing, where you expect others to provide proof of their assertions, while
> you make your pronouncements with no evidence, whatsoever.
First up, why do think I see everything through the eyes of Bjj? I don't. That's
just how I've been passing the time for the past few years.
>> No doubt, legions of supporters will say it's all what it's cracked up to
> be, but
>> when asked for said proof, will only tell tales, and that's hardly the
> proof any
>> reasonable person would seek.
>
> Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt training
> doesn't help at all, against a knife.
IOW please prove a negative. I don't have to prove a thing; I'm not making any
claims. If YOU think Iron Shirt is effective against knives, the onus is in YOU
to prove that, not on ME to prove it ain't so. This is a fundamental of logical
discourse, yet one you still have not grasped. Seems I still have to do your
thinking for you.
>> Cue Xiaou2 in 3...2...1....
>
> Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Instead, you have me.
It's still nice. Despite all your nonsense, I don't mind you at all...in fact I
agree with a lot you say here.
Wayne Dobson
No, no, you have it all wrong. The pleasure will be all mine. I have a
thousand pound weight, suspended from a crane, which I am willing to lower
on any challenger. Once have you succeeded in using your arms to press it
from off of your chest, you can do what you like with your knife.
theoriginaldimi
Wayne Dobson schreef:
I have a shark with a frikkin' laster mounted on its head.
[IMG]http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p239/theoriginaldimi/10420140613.gif[/IMG]
You are so fucked!
Dimitri
Wayne Dobson
news:1161693473.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
That's not the same. If GDS had made some effort to present evidence that
he was familiar with Iron Shirt training, it's typical benefits and reasons
why such training extrapolated even to an extreme, met with some limiting
factor which prevented any reasonable degree of protection against a knife
attack, being attained, I would have been more than satisfied. As is, all I
saw was an appeal to authority.
Shuurai
Dammit! Who told Mike about the invisible armada of flying saucers?!
nemo_outis
Here's the name of a western master of "iron shirt" or "golden bell"
(although he didn't call it that): Houdini.
But it didn't save him from the combo of an unexpected punch and
appendicitis.
Regards,
Wayne Dobson
>
> >> Doesn't look much like it'll stop a
> >> > knife or keep you from being choked out. Or does it?
> >>
> >> No, it wouldn't help in these circumstances at all, and any claims to
the
> >> contrary would require some supporting proof.
> >
> > Just say that you have no clue. It would save time. It appears to be a
BJJ
> > thing, where you expect others to provide proof of their assertions,
while
> > you make your pronouncements with no evidence, whatsoever.
>
> First up, why do think I see everything through the eyes of Bjj? I don't.
That's
> just how I've been passing the time for the past few years.
When you display BJJ traits, I tend to think that you are seeing through the
eyes of a BJJer.
> >> No doubt, legions of supporters will say it's all what it's cracked up
to
> > be, but
> >> when asked for said proof, will only tell tales, and that's hardly the
> > proof any
> >> reasonable person would seek.
> >
> > Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt
training
> > doesn't help at all, against a knife.
>
> IOW please prove a negative. I don't have to prove a thing; I'm not making
any > claims.
Yes you have. You claimed that Iron Shirt training wouldn't help in
stopping a knife. A couple of magazines could, so why couldn't callouses
formed over a period of years?
> If YOU think Iron Shirt is effective against knives, the onus is in YOU
> to prove that, not on ME to prove it ain't so.
Straw man.
> This is a fundamental of logical
> discourse, yet one you still have not grasped. Seems I still have to do
your
> thinking for you.
A fundamental rule of logical discourse is also that a straw man argument is
invalid.
> >> Cue Xiaou2 in 3...2...1....
> >
> > Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Instead, you have me.
>
> It's still nice. Despite all your nonsense, I don't mind you at all...in
fact I
> agree with a lot you say here.
Haha... Which of my nonsense are you most fond of? Haha...
I don't mind you, either. I think you're ok. But needling BJJers is most
entertaining. I'm collecting phrases suitable for the parodying and
insulting of BJJers, such as:
"No can defend";
"A true BJJer";
"The only fight a BJJer loses, is the one he can't find";
"You've armbarred the butthole of bullshit."
Et cetera. You get the drift.
Much of what I hear from BJJers is comical, anyway. So I thought I'd work
it into my routine. Hahahaha...
Shuurai
> > to be, but when asked for said proof, will only tell tales, and that's
> > hardly the proof any reasonable person would seek.
> >
> > Cue Xiaou2 in 3...2...1....
>
>
> Heh, I rarely pop on here.. and low and behold, GDS post
> a pretty darn accurate post about a non BJJ subject?! Bravo! :)
He invoked your name. You had no choice but to appear. Of course to
you it will seem like you just happened to pop in - that is part of the
power.
> In addition, I will add, that Iron Shirt also uses slow moving
> meditation like forms simular to that of Tai-Chi.
Usually when mine irons my shirts slowly like tai chi I tell her to get
her ass moving... after all, she's got dinner to make.
> This includes Advanced heavy deep breathing, chi movment, advanced
> awareness, concentration, feeling, and muscle strengthening... and more.
Advanced in what way?
> Ive not tried to really put these ideas into words.. so I may
> get this a bit off.. but Ill try anways..
Is iron shirt training a part of wing chun?
> My theory is that its like an Isometric excercise.. however,
> with the constant deep breathing.. it sorta changes things...
If it's anything at all it's probably got a lot to do with isometrics.
Stronger muscles absorb more impact, allow you to take hits better.
> If you hold your body tense.. and begin breathing long deep
> breaths consistenly at a good pace.. you may notice that your
> bodys limbs and other areas expand a bit. The increased pressure,
> and maybe the actual overly rich oxegen content in the blood.. may
> cause this..? Anyway, the effect really adds to the overall
> stength and absorbancy of the structure. A lot probably from internal
> density being filled with rushing pressure blood.
Umm, no. No matter how deep you're breathing, you aren't going to
raise the pressure of the blood in your body to the extent that it's
"expanding" anything; and even if you could do that it would kill you
long before it caused any expansion you'd notice. So the pressure
theory has to go out the window right now.
> The guess is that the pathways of flow may gain in diameter, and
> or just work better overall (smother flow, or blockage cleared),
> after doing these ISO drills with that kind of breathing.
Flow of what?
> The Mind connection, from doing the drill over and over, may
> cause an internal subconsious connection... which may tighten
> in the best ways, at the right split-second, to help to absorb
> damageing forces much better than most who are not trained
> simularly.
Sure - you can tighten your muscles at the moment of impact to absorb
the hit, but that doesn't need to be at any subconsious level. You
just do it.
> Overall, the effect is greater density of Tissues, Bone..etc.
> Which can widthstand much greater forces. Forces that once
> caused pains, become laughable meaningless thuds.
Mostly comes down to having stronger, more toned muscle mass acting as
a shock absorber.
> Theres so much more Im leaving out or not really thinking of
> due to time restraint.
What's the hurry?
> Such as ability to use entire body to absorb forces rather
> than just a single muscle or small area.
Which is accomplished how?
> Also, as said before.. typical 'conditioning' does
> yeild higher density of tissue fibers and higher density bones.
And as said before, these things are largely insignificant compared to
the gain of muscle. Having strong bones will not proect you for
example from a knockout punch, or a punch to the gut. And you're not
going to make your non-muscle tissues "denser" in such a manner as to
protect yourself from a real hit.
> Ive not heard anyone saying Iron Shirt would stop a knife!
Thank goodness for that.
> As said here, its more meant to widthstand "small area"
> "Deep" pressure point strikes (Dim Mak), and wide area
> heavy force strikes.
The question is, does it actually *do* what it's meant to do?
> Tho Ive seen demos of dull spears pressed against the neck tho..
> and it does take quite a good deal of strength and density
> to keep it from causing damage internally.. or even an
> external wound. (This demo may only be done in Tai Chi.. however,
> its an example of pretty much the same thing.)
Parlor trick. You bend the spear by placing the side of the point
against your neck, and then standing at just the right rate as the
other person presses it against you. The spear cannot help but bend,
and if you do it right there is very little chance of it hurting you.
I saw a guy do this at a seminar several years ago as a demo, and he
explained how it was done. No iron short or anything like that -
simple physics.
> (it may slow a knife down a little.. but it aint gona stop it!
> esp if its a stab -vs- a slash)
Why does stab vs. slash matter? A knife is going to cut you either way
- no training in the world is going to change that. The only way to
avoid being cut by a knife is to avoid having the blade make contact
with your flesh.
> Choked out? Doing these drills may give you an increased
> lung capacity and overall higher oxegen carryiing ability within
> the cells/blood. This may help to give you more time.. but surely
> isnt going to stop the effect competely. Since the neck will
> ballon a bit more than normal, is stronger and less able to
> be compressed.. it also may help in that repect too. Tho I Imagine
> typical training in BJJ already does that because they are always
> chocking each other while charged up.. which is almost the same thing.
If you strengthen your neck muscles it can help - but your best bet is
still to avoid the choke in the first place.
Shuurai
> > IOW please prove a negative. I don't have to prove a thing; I'm not making
> > any claims.
>
> Yes you have. You claimed that Iron Shirt training wouldn't help in
> stopping a knife.
Logically, his position is the negative of a claim, and therefore
cannot be "proven" by anyone. If you want to argue that iron shirt can
stop a knife, the onus is on you to prove that it can, or at the very
least provide evidence that it can.
> A couple of magazines could, so why couldn't callouses
> formed over a period of years?
Because a couple of magazines is far denser and thicker than any amount
of callous you will ever be able to build no matter how long you train.
Because a knife will still penetrate fairly deeply into a stack of
magazines, enough so to cause extreme blood loss if it penetrated that
same depth into flesh (calloused or not). Because a stack of magazines
will *not* stop a fully committed attack with a sharp knife.
> > If YOU think Iron Shirt is effective against knives, the onus is in YOU
> > to prove that, not on ME to prove it ain't so.
>
> Straw man.
You should probably look up the term "straw man" before using it again.
> > This is a fundamental of logical
> > discourse, yet one you still have not grasped. Seems I still have to do
> > your thinking for you.
>
> A fundamental rule of logical discourse is also that a straw man argument is
> invalid.
And if he'd actually used a straw man, you might have a point. Here's
a hint - you can't just invoke the phrase "straw man" and have it
magically apply to any situation.
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
> "GreendistantNOSPAMstar" <Greendis...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:w4o%g.52316$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> >> Doesn't look much like it'll stop a
>> >> > knife or keep you from being choked out. Or does it?
>> >>
>> >> No, it wouldn't help in these circumstances at all, and any claims to
> the
>> >> contrary would require some supporting proof.
>> >
>> > Just say that you have no clue. It would save time. It appears to be a
> BJJ
>> > thing, where you expect others to provide proof of their assertions,
> while
>> > you make your pronouncements with no evidence, whatsoever.
>>
>> First up, why do think I see everything through the eyes of Bjj? I don't.
> That's
>> just how I've been passing the time for the past few years.
>
> When you display BJJ traits, I tend to think that you are seeing through the
> eyes of a BJJer.
WTF are 'Bjj traits'? The well-founded belief that it is the foundation of what
is perhaps the most effective h2h system ever devised? I'll admit to that, sure.
But I'm under no illusion that it is he be-all and end-all of ma.
>> >> No doubt, legions of supporters will say it's all what it's cracked up
> to
>> > be, but
>> >> when asked for said proof, will only tell tales, and that's hardly the
>> > proof any
>> >> reasonable person would seek.
>> >
>> > Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt
> training
>> > doesn't help at all, against a knife.
>>
>> IOW please prove a negative. I don't have to prove a thing; I'm not making
> any > claims.
>
> Yes you have. You claimed that Iron Shirt training wouldn't help in
> stopping a knife. A couple of magazines could, so why couldn't callouses
> formed over a period of years?
No Wayne, that's not how logic works.
>> If YOU think Iron Shirt is effective against knives, the onus is in YOU
>> to prove that, not on ME to prove it ain't so.
>
> Straw man.
Nah, not even close. That not a straw man argument.
>> This is a fundamental of logical
>> discourse, yet one you still have not grasped. Seems I still have to do
> your
>> thinking for you.
>
> A fundamental rule of logical discourse is also that a straw man argument is
> invalid.
No straw man here. The claims of YB fall into the same category. Someone makes an
outrageous claim, it's up to the claimant to prove it, not the doubter to prove
it ain't so. Indeed, you may care to tell me exactly how I would go about proving
a negative. I await your response and resultant stuggling with amused interest.
>> >> Cue Xiaou2 in 3...2...1....
>> >
>> > Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Instead, you have me.
>>
>> It's still nice. Despite all your nonsense, I don't mind you at all...in
> fact I
>> agree with a lot you say here.
>
> Haha... Which of my nonsense are you most fond of?
I didn't say I was fond of your nonsense, such as what you're peddling here. If
someone utilizing Iron Shirt claims they can stop a knife, well let them prove
it.
Haha...
> I don't mind you, either. I think you're ok. But needling BJJers is most
> entertaining. I'm collecting phrases suitable for the parodying and
> insulting of BJJers, such as:
>
> "No can defend";
> "A true BJJer";
> "The only fight a BJJer loses, is the one he can't find";
> "You've armbarred the butthole of bullshit."
> Et cetera. You get the drift.
>
> Much of what I hear from BJJers is comical, anyway. So I thought I'd work
> it into my routine. Hahahaha...
That such comments are troll-based is of course obvious. What's comical however
is that Bjj can actually prove its claims, which kinda makes you look like a real
muggins.
But you'd be used to that, eh?
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
> "Mike" <mkor...@nd.edu> wrote in message
> news:1161693473.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt
> training
>> > doesn't help at all, against a knife.
>>
>> Please provide proof that there is not an invisible armada of flying
>> saucers hovering around the earth ...
>
> That's not the same.
Oh yes it is!
If GDS had made some effort to present evidence that
> he was familiar with Iron Shirt training, it's typical benefits and reasons
> why such training extrapolated even to an extreme, met with some limiting
> factor which prevented any reasonable degree of protection against a knife
> attack, being attained, I would have been more than satisfied.
This is complete baloney. I don't have to prove evidence of familiarity with
something to take a disinterested view that its claims are suspect. Let's take
the old whipping horse, Yellow Bamboo, as an example. Assume a
scientist/physicist sees one of their tapes of no-touch KOs and decides to
investigate. By your 'logic' you would support their contention that the
scientist must engage in the activity to show his 'familiarity' with it. That my
friend, is a crock of shit.
As is, all I
> saw was an appeal to authority.
I thought it was a straw man argument? Gee, you gotta bone up on your logic 101,
Wayne. I used to teach this back in the day, and for a modest stipend I could
even teach it to you via correspondence. You got a credit card?
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
"Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161698217.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I for one welcome our new outer-space overlords. They have head-mounted lasers
too.
Doubters please provide proof this isn't so.
Wayne Dobson
>
> > > IOW please prove a negative. I don't have to prove a thing; I'm not
making
> > > any claims.
> >
> > Yes you have. You claimed that Iron Shirt training wouldn't help in
> > stopping a knife.
>
> Logically, his position is the negative of a claim, and therefore
> cannot be "proven" by anyone. If you want to argue that iron shirt can
> stop a knife, the onus is on you to prove that it can, or at the very
> least provide evidence that it can.
Straw man.
> > A couple of magazines could, so why couldn't callouses
> > formed over a period of years?
>
> Because a couple of magazines is far denser and thicker than any amount
> of callous you will ever be able to build no matter how long you train.
What is the limit to the density and thickness of callous that it is
possible to develop, given an infinite amount of time?
> Because a knife will still penetrate fairly deeply into a stack of
> magazines, enough so to cause extreme blood loss if it penetrated that
> same depth into flesh (calloused or not).
I doubt it. Have you tried it?
> Because a stack of magazines will *not* stop a fully committed attack with
a sharp knife.
Irrespective of their thickness?
> > > If YOU think Iron Shirt is effective against knives, the onus is in
YOU
> > > to prove that, not on ME to prove it ain't so.
> >
> > Straw man.
>
> You should probably look up the term "straw man" before using it again.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man]
"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an
opponent's position."
> > > This is a fundamental of logical
> > > discourse, yet one you still have not grasped. Seems I still have to
do
> > > your thinking for you.
> >
> > A fundamental rule of logical discourse is also that a straw man
argument is
> > invalid.
>
> And if he'd actually used a straw man, you might have a point. Here's
> a hint - you can't just invoke the phrase "straw man" and have it
> magically apply to any situation.
A hint for you: your waving a magic wand and wishing for it, won't suddenly
make me scatty. Show me where I stated that Iron Shirt training could stop
a knife.
Badger North
Rabid Weasel wrote:
> What exactly is "Iron Shirt" training anyway and how useful is it?
My sifu taught two versions: "northern" and "southern".
I practiced the less-arduous northern version, since I had a
girlfriend, and therefore was losing all my precious chi (stop
laughing, it's what my sifu told me). My classmates were all
desperately trying to find a girlfriend so they wouldn't have to do the
southern version anymore.
The northern iron shirt:
You would take a horse-riding stance and go through a series of
self-delivered hits, up and down the chest, up and down the sides of
the torso, and to the kidneys. There were also a few preparatory
exercises, including accu-pressure.
The southern iron shirt:
You would fold over at the waist, so that your head was resting on the
wall, and your back was parallel to the floor. Another student would
slap your back, using just the fingertips, working from shoulders to
hips. After a bunch of those, you would rotate 90 degrees so your side
was presented, and it would continue, etc. etc.
The practitioner would very quickly be covered with these tiger-stripey
bruises, with occasional droplets of blood oozing through.
> I mean, I know what the ChopSocky flicks say it is; invulnerable skin,
> etc. But what is it exactly.
>
> And just how useful is it anyway. Doesn't look much like it'll stop a
> knife or keep you from being choked out. Or does it?
It's supposed to be protection against blunt force trauma. For my
sifu, it seemed to work pretty well - he could take a good hit. To be
fair, though, all hits were done under very prepared, very restricted
formats, so who knows? In the three years I trained with him, there
were only three times I ever did anything resembling free sparring with
him, and it ended badly for him each time.
He did the spear break on the throat and Iron Crotch demos too, but
those are strictly based on tricks - no conditioning required.
Badger North
www.youngforest.ca
Shuurai
AND WHO TOLD GDS ABOUT THE HEAD MOUNTED LASERS?!?
That does it, everyone with Security Level Six report to the main
office for liquidation, immediately.
Philippe
liquified...
:)
P.
--
I do *NOT* have a short attention sp...(Oooh!! shiny!!)
Wayne Dobson
>
> >> First up, why do think I see everything through the eyes of Bjj? I
don't.
> > That's
> >> just how I've been passing the time for the past few years.
> >
> > When you display BJJ traits, I tend to think that you are seeing through
the
> > eyes of a BJJer.
>
> WTF are 'Bjj traits'? The well-founded belief that it is the foundation of
what
> is perhaps the most effective h2h system ever devised? I'll admit to that,
sure.
> But I'm under no illusion that it is he be-all and end-all of ma.
That's more a belief than a trait, but it is a distinguishing feature of the
BJJ mindset. Another is that they don't have to have any manners, because
they are the biggest baddest mofos ever to walk the planet.
> >> > Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt
> > training
> >> > doesn't help at all, against a knife.
> >>
> >> IOW please prove a negative. I don't have to prove a thing; I'm not
making
> > any > claims.
> >
> > Yes you have. You claimed that Iron Shirt training wouldn't help in
> > stopping a knife. A couple of magazines could, so why couldn't
callouses
> > formed over a period of years?
>
> No Wayne, that's not how logic works.
Side-step.
> >> If YOU think Iron Shirt is effective against knives, the onus is in YOU
> >> to prove that, not on ME to prove it ain't so.
> >
> > Straw man.
>
> Nah, not even close. That not a straw man argument.
It's a misrepresentation of my position, and a subsequent argument based on
that misrepresentation. Straw man.
> >> This is a fundamental of logical
> >> discourse, yet one you still have not grasped. Seems I still have to do
> > your
> >> thinking for you.
> >
> > A fundamental rule of logical discourse is also that a straw man
argument is
> > invalid.
>
> No straw man here. The claims of YB fall into the same category. Someone
makes an
> outrageous claim, it's up to the claimant to prove it, not the doubter to
prove
> it ain't so. Indeed, you may care to tell me exactly how I would go about
proving
> a negative. I await your response and resultant stuggling with amused
interest.
Me, struggle? Haha... When have you ever seen that happen?
Now, explain to me, then, how you can make a claim about something which
cannot be known? Either way, you've painted yourself into a corner.
> >> >> Cue Xiaou2 in 3...2...1....
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Instead, you have me.
> >>
> >> It's still nice. Despite all your nonsense, I don't mind you at
all...in
> > fact I
> >> agree with a lot you say here.
> >
> > Haha... Which of my nonsense are you most fond of?
>
> I didn't say I was fond of your nonsense, such as what you're peddling
here.
Exactly what have I said, that is nonsense?
> If someone utilizing Iron Shirt claims they can stop a knife, well let
them prove
> it.
Riiiight. When you get done, arguing with this 'someone', I'll still be
here.
> Haha...
> > I don't mind you, either. I think you're ok. But needling BJJers is
most
> > entertaining. I'm collecting phrases suitable for the parodying and
> > insulting of BJJers, such as:
> >
> > "No can defend";
> > "A true BJJer";
> > "The only fight a BJJer loses, is the one he can't find";
> > "You've armbarred the butthole of bullshit."
> > Et cetera. You get the drift.
> >
> > Much of what I hear from BJJers is comical, anyway. So I thought I'd
work
> > it into my routine. Hahahaha...
>
> That such comments are troll-based is of course obvious.
Thanks. I forgot one important angle. You've just reminded me.
"Troll based! No can defend!"
> What's comical however
> is that Bjj can actually prove its claims, which kinda makes you look like
a real
> muggins.
Bitch, everyone's brave at a great distance. I've had lots of people laugh
at me. Though, for some strange reason they couldn't remember what was so
funny, up close, when I had lost my sense of humour.
> But you'd be used to that, eh?
Yes, I am.
Rabid Weasel
<waves hand and intones in a hypnotic voice>
These aren't the invisible flying saucers hovering around the earth that
you're looking for.
Move along.
Wayne Dobson
>
> "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:aQo%g.67543$3D1....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > "Mike" <mkor...@nd.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1161693473.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt
> > training
> >> > doesn't help at all, against a knife.
> >>
> >> Please provide proof that there is not an invisible armada of flying
> >> saucers hovering around the earth ...
> >
> > That's not the same.
>
> Oh yes it is!
>
> If GDS had made some effort to present evidence that
> > he was familiar with Iron Shirt training, it's typical benefits and
reasons
> > why such training extrapolated even to an extreme, met with some
limiting
> > factor which prevented any reasonable degree of protection against a
knife
> > attack, being attained, I would have been more than satisfied.
>
> This is complete baloney. I don't have to prove evidence of familiarity
with
> something to take a disinterested view that its claims are suspect.
You did more than that. You made a categorical statement.
> Let's take
> the old whipping horse, Yellow Bamboo, as an example.
Yes, let's side-track, in the hope that the original thrust of the argument
will be forgotten.
> Assume a
> scientist/physicist sees one of their tapes of no-touch KOs and decides to
> investigate. By your 'logic' you would support their contention that the
> scientist must engage in the activity to show his 'familiarity' with it.
That my
> friend, is a crock of shit.
Your ass still has a ring around it, in the shape of a crock, and the shit
is still steaming.
> As is, all I
> > saw was an appeal to authority.
>
> I thought it was a straw man argument? Gee, you gotta bone up on your
logic 101,
> Wayne.
Two seperate arguments. Pay attention.
> I used to teach this back in the day, and for a modest stipend I could
> even teach it to you via correspondence. You got a credit card?
I coulda been a contenda!
Mike
> > > training
> > >> > doesn't help at all, against a knife.
> > >>
> > >> IOW please prove a negative. I don't have to prove a thing; I'm not
> making
> > > any > claims.
> > >
> > > Yes you have. You claimed that Iron Shirt training wouldn't help in
> > > stopping a knife. A couple of magazines could, so why couldn't
> callouses
> > > formed over a period of years?
> >
> > No Wayne, that's not how logic works.
>
> Side-step.
>
> > >> If YOU think Iron Shirt is effective against knives, the onus is in YOU
> > >> to prove that, not on ME to prove it ain't so.
> > >
> > > Straw man.
> >
> > Nah, not even close. That not a straw man argument.
>
> It's a misrepresentation of my position, and a subsequent argument based on
> that misrepresentation. Straw man.
It would appear that some of us have made a slight mistake in supposing
that you had presented SOME opinion on the subject at hand. I guess
that is the problem with nay saying. One can only logically assume that
your opinjion is contray to that are doing the nay-saying.
However, we do have a direct quote from you.
"> Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt
training
> doesn't help at all, against a knife. "
Which shows conclusively that you think it is the doubters onus to
provide credibility to the doubted, which it is not.
That is a logical fallacy. Pretending that people raising the subject
of your logical fallacy is itself a straw man, is circular, which
itself is another fallacy.
> Me, struggle? Haha... When have you ever seen that happen?
I see it happening right now. The fact that you are not aware of it, is
not my problem.
> > > "No can defend";
Seen this one used by alot of kung-fu sake guys.
> > > "A true BJJer";
Heard the phrase " A real karate master" would have ... tons of times
too.
> > > "The only fight a BJJer loses, is the one he can't find";
Never heard that one.
> > > "You've armbarred the butthole of bullshit."
That expression is used when one person agrees with another. Would you
prefer the expression "You Dimaked the chi center of his essence"?
> > > Et cetera. You get the drift.
Sounds liek you have alot of experience in talking to jerks. Some jerks
do Bjj, some do other things.
> > > Much of what I hear from BJJers is comical, anyway.
Non-sequitor.
> Bitch, everyone's brave at a great distance. I've had lots of people laugh
> at me. Though, for some strange reason they couldn't remember what was so
> funny, up close, when I had lost my sense of humour.
Sounds like you have anger management issues.
-Mike K.
Chas
> If it's anything at all it's probably got a lot to do with isometrics.
> Stronger muscles absorb more impact, allow you to take hits better.
An indispensable part of 'iron shirt' is taking dietary supplements, and
using jows. That's combined with very basic physical conditioning to toughen
the skin/muscles and to make your bones denser.
There is no doubt that targeted conditioning increases function- if you
target martial attributes, you get greater martial function.
> Umm, no. No matter how deep you're breathing, you aren't going to
> raise the pressure of the blood in your body to the extent that it's
> "expanding" anything; and even if you could do that it would kill you
> long before it caused any expansion you'd notice. So the pressure
> theory has to go out the window right now.
Only because of the failure to communicate the training technique, and it's
results- not the efficacy of the drills themselves.
The control over breathing patterns, and the mental imagery of what each of
those patterns accomplishes, probably has little relationship to your
sphygmomanometer.
> Sure - you can tighten your muscles at the moment of impact to absorb
> the hit, but that doesn't need to be at any subconsious level. You
> just do it.
If you target refining and conditioning yourself to 'just do it', you get
greater functionability and greater practical application. It's true in all
areas of physical conditioning.
> Mostly comes down to having stronger, more toned muscle mass acting as
> a shock absorber.
And stronger bones, stronger tendons/cartilage- and that's what comes from
the dietary supplements like shark cartilage (glucosamine chondraiton), deer
hooves (gelatin), insect shells (chitin), and the external washes (like
dipping in brine/seawater to toughen boxers' hands).
You *start* with a very fit body, and then refine it for 'martial' usage.
>> Such as ability to use entire body to absorb forces rather
>> than just a single muscle or small area.
> Which is accomplished how?
Learning to groundpath force, and training the body to work on the level of
its integument muscle sheath. The requisite mental state is sufficient only
in that it provides a model that the body works out 'sub' consciously.
> And as said before, these things are largely insignificant compared to
> the gain of muscle. Having strong bones will not proect you for
> example from a knockout punch, or a punch to the gut. And you're not
> going to make your non-muscle tissues "denser" in such a manner as to
> protect yourself from a real hit.
None of those statements is particularly true.
'Muscle' is not as important as 'correctly muscled'.
Strong bones will protect you from a lot of affect from hard hits- shins,
forearms, head. And with strong bones come strong joints/tendons.
You have your own idea of what constitutes a 'real hit', but I assure you
that targeted conditioning works, and the adept's body changes in
appropriate ways- including becoming 'denser'.
>> Ive not heard anyone saying Iron Shirt would stop a knife!
> Thank goodness for that.
What they will tell you, and show you, is that they can restrict bloodflow
to the cut- check out the National Geographic on 'kris' trancers, for
example.
>> As said here, its more meant to widthstand "small area"
>> "Deep" pressure point strikes (Dim Mak), and wide area
>> heavy force strikes.
> The question is, does it actually *do* what it's meant to do?
Yes; it does.
It might well not rise to the standards set by RunRun Shaw, but, again,
targeted conditioning works.
--
Chas
Do the Right Thing!
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/
(blackjacks, saps, practice and conditioning tools)
Wayne Dobson
> > > No Wayne, that's not how logic works.
> >
> > Side-step.
> >
> > > >> If YOU think Iron Shirt is effective against knives, the onus is in
YOU
> > > >> to prove that, not on ME to prove it ain't so.
> > > >
> > > > Straw man.
> > >
> > > Nah, not even close. That not a straw man argument.
> >
> > It's a misrepresentation of my position, and a subsequent argument based
on
> > that misrepresentation. Straw man.
>
> It would appear that some of us have made a slight mistake in supposing
> that you had presented SOME opinion on the subject at hand.
The subject at hand is what the claims are based on, not the claims
themselves.
> I guess that is the problem with nay saying.
Nah, I would say that it would be more to do with poor comprehension.
> One can only logically assume that
> your opinjion is contray to that are doing the nay-saying.
Failing assumption, one could bother oneself to actually read what was
written.
> However, we do have a direct quote from you.
>
> "> Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt
> training
> > doesn't help at all, against a knife. "
>
> Which shows conclusively that you think it is the doubters onus to
> provide credibility to the doubted, which it is not.
It shows no such thing. It is a call to present the basis for a claim,
rather than make baseless claims.
> That is a logical fallacy. Pretending that people raising the subject
> of your logical fallacy is itself a straw man, is circular, which
> itself is another fallacy.
Yes, but where is this said fallacy?
> > Me, struggle? Haha... When have you ever seen that happen?
>
> I see it happening right now. The fact that you are not aware of it, is
> not my problem.
Good that you see it. Now, show it.
> > > > "No can defend";
>
> Seen this one used by alot of kung-fu sake guys.
Nah, it's from out of the Karate Kid movies.
> > > > "A true BJJer";
>
> Heard the phrase " A real karate master" would have ... tons of times
> too.
You mean a real karate master could have his nuts bitten off, his eyes
gouged out, his fingers broken, his head decapitated and still fight on,
also?
> > > > "The only fight a BJJer loses, is the one he can't find";
>
> Never heard that one.
I made it up. I thought it fitting.
> > > > "You've armbarred the butthole of bullshit."
>
> That expression is used when one person agrees with another.
No it doesn't. It's a bastardised version of "armbarred the correct",
meaning the opposite.
> Would you prefer the expression "You Dimaked the chi center of his
essence"?
No.
> > > > Et cetera. You get the drift.
>
> Sounds liek you have alot of experience in talking to jerks. Some jerks
> do Bjj, some do other things.
Do those other things also turn them into jerks?
> > > > Much of what I hear from BJJers is comical, anyway.
>
> Non-sequitor.
No it isn't. You really should look it up.
> > Bitch, everyone's brave at a great distance. I've had lots of people
laugh
> > at me. Though, for some strange reason they couldn't remember what was
so
> > funny, up close, when I had lost my sense of humour.
>
> Sounds like you have anger management issues.
I'm not angry. GDS was being scathing, denigrating a supposed inability to
prove that I can fight, and presenting this as grounds for ridicule. I was
just pointing out that I've had many people laugh at me, with alot of
confidence, at a distance. I've yet to see anyone so brave, up-close, once
I'd had enough. Laughing at someone from a distance, don't mean shit.
Jerry B. Altzman
> What exactly is "Iron Shirt" training anyway and how useful is it?
From what I understand, toughening and conditioning for the upper body.
> And just how useful is it anyway. Doesn't look much like it'll stop a
> knife or keep you from being choked out. Or does it?
Worked real well in the Boxer Rebellion.
not
> Kirk
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jba...@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.
Shuurai
> > If it's anything at all it's probably got a lot to do with isometrics.
> > Stronger muscles absorb more impact, allow you to take hits better.
>
> An indispensable part of 'iron shirt' is taking dietary supplements, and
> using jows. That's combined with very basic physical conditioning to toughen
> the skin/muscles and to make your bones denser.
Yeah, I know how it's supposed to work - the question is, are you ever
going to make your skin and bones "denser" to the point where they
offer you any appreciable protection from serious hitting? I just
don't think it's possible. You may be able to toughen yourself up to
the point where you can ignore weaker hits, but not against a serious
hitter.
> There is no doubt that targeted conditioning increases function- if you
> target martial attributes, you get greater martial function.
Sure... IF the attributes that you target are actually achieveable.
That is the question - can the skin of the human body be made denser so
as to offer real protection from serious impact. Frankly I don't
believe it can - no matter how much you target it.
Bone can become denser, but does having denser bone actually *do*
anything for you in terms of your ability to withstand impact? Is it
possible to increase the denisty of bone *that* much, so as to make a
notable difference? I've seen no evidence that it can.
> > Umm, no. No matter how deep you're breathing, you aren't going to
> > raise the pressure of the blood in your body to the extent that it's
> > "expanding" anything; and even if you could do that it would kill you
> > long before it caused any expansion you'd notice. So the pressure
> > theory has to go out the window right now.
>
> Only because of the failure to communicate the training technique, and it's
> results- not the efficacy of the drills themselves.
I'm not saying anything about the drills, I'm saying that his theory of
using blood pressure to "expand" to the extent that you are protected
from impact, just doesn't hold water.
> The control over breathing patterns, and the mental imagery of what each of
> those patterns accomplishes, probably has little relationship to your
> sphygmomanometer.
I agree.
> > Sure - you can tighten your muscles at the moment of impact to absorb
> > the hit, but that doesn't need to be at any subconsious level. You
> > just do it.
>
> If you target refining and conditioning yourself to 'just do it', you get
> greater functionability and greater practical application. It's true in all
> areas of physical conditioning.
Agreed/
> > Mostly comes down to having stronger, more toned muscle mass acting as
> > a shock absorber.
>
> And stronger bones, stronger tendons/cartilage- and that's what comes from
> the dietary supplements like shark cartilage (glucosamine chondraiton), deer
> hooves (gelatin), insect shells (chitin), and the external washes (like
> dipping in brine/seawater to toughen boxers' hands).
In terms of your ability to withstand an impact, muscle is going to
have a far greater effect than any of those things - probably even all
of those things combined.
> You *start* with a very fit body, and then refine it for 'martial' usage.
Agreed - the question is how best to get there.
> >> Such as ability to use entire body to absorb forces rather
> >> than just a single muscle or small area.
> > Which is accomplished how?
>
> Learning to groundpath force, and training the body to work on the level of
> its integument muscle sheath. The requisite mental state is sufficient only
> in that it provides a model that the body works out 'sub' consciously.
How does the groundpath force protect you from an impact - let's say a
shovel hook to the gut or an uppercut to the jaw?
> > And as said before, these things are largely insignificant compared to
> > the gain of muscle. Having strong bones will not proect you for
> > example from a knockout punch, or a punch to the gut. And you're not
> > going to make your non-muscle tissues "denser" in such a manner as to
> > protect yourself from a real hit.
>
> None of those statements is particularly true.
They're all true. Human bone and skin doesn't become denser to the
point where it comes even close to the absorbtion effect that muscle
provides. A knockout occurs because your brain doesn't move with your
skull - it doesn't matter how hard that skull is. A punch to the gut
is unaffected by bone density because there is no BONE to get in the
way.
> 'Muscle' is not as important as 'correctly muscled'.
Same concept.
> Strong bones will protect you from a lot of affect from hard hits- shins,
> forearms, head. And with strong bones come strong joints/tendons.
Sure - when you're hitting the bone itself. I thought we were talking
about iron shirt?
> You have your own idea of what constitutes a 'real hit', but I assure you
> that targeted conditioning works, and the adept's body changes in
> appropriate ways- including becoming 'denser'.
I think you're being a little loose with the term "denser" though. A
long distance runner's body becomes denser too, as his levels of fat
reduce and his muscle increases. A body builder's body becomes denser
as he packs on muscle and loses fat.
I've seen reports showing that bones become denser in runners and other
athletes, in response to the stress of actvitiy. But the question is:
Does it become denser enough that it actually matters in terms of
ability to withstand impact? I haven't seen anything to suggest that
it does.
> >> Ive not heard anyone saying Iron Shirt would stop a knife!
> > Thank goodness for that.
>
> What they will tell you, and show you, is that they can restrict bloodflow
> to the cut- check out the National Geographic on 'kris' trancers, for
> example.
To some degree, and to superficial cuts.
Badger North
Jerry B. Altzman wrote:
> Worked real well in the Boxer Rebellion.
> not
Unfortunately for the Chinese rebels, 'kevlar shirt' qigong wasn't
developed until 1965.
Badger North
www.youngforest.ca
Chas
> Yeah, I know how it's supposed to work - the question is, are you ever
> going to make your skin and bones "denser" to the point where they
> offer you any appreciable protection from serious hitting?
Yes.
not to include being bulletproof.
> I just
> don't think it's possible. You may be able to toughen yourself up to
> the point where you can ignore weaker hits, but not against a serious
> hitter.
You can escalate 'serious hitter' until it's hyperbolic nonsense.
There's no doubt that targeted conditioning works.
> Bone can become denser, but does having denser bone actually *do*
> anything for you in terms of your ability to withstand impact? Is it
> possible to increase the denisty of bone *that* much, so as to make a
> notable difference? I've seen no evidence that it can.
Then you've not explored the question-
think about the archers' skeletons with the hyperconditioned right arm- or
the swordsmen with hyperdeveloped bones- the evidence is there.
> I'm not saying anything about the drills, I'm saying that his theory of
> using blood pressure to "expand" to the extent that you are protected
> from impact, just doesn't hold water.
It's his 'theory of blood-pressure' that's at question, not the efficacy of
the training.
> In terms of your ability to withstand an impact, muscle is going to
> have a far greater effect than any of those things - probably even all
> of those things combined.
You train all things, not just parts.
>> You *start* with a very fit body, and then refine it for 'martial' usage.
> Agreed - the question is how best to get there.
Yes; and 'targeted training' is generally thought to be the most effective.
> How does the groundpath force protect you from an impact - let's say a
> shovel hook to the gut or an uppercut to the jaw?
Same way it does with anything else.
> Sure - when you're hitting the bone itself. I thought we were talking
> about iron shirt?
The skeletal aspect is important in 'iron' body conditioning.
>> What they will tell you, and show you, is that they can restrict
>> bloodflow
>> to the cut- check out the National Geographic on 'kris' trancers, for
>> example.
> To some degree, and to superficial cuts.
As opposed to 'not doing it at all'- which is where everybody starts from,
and targeted conditioning overcomes.
Mike
> themselves.
>
> > I guess that is the problem with nay saying.
>
> Nah, I would say that it would be more to do with poor comprehension.
So, going back to where you asked someone to prove a negative ...
>
> > One can only logically assume that
> > your opinjion is contray to that are doing the nay-saying.
>
> Failing assumption, one could bother oneself to actually read what was
> written.
Read it all, and understood it all as it was written.
> > "> Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt
> > training
> > > doesn't help at all, against a knife. "
> >
> > Which shows conclusively that you think it is the doubters onus to
> > provide credibility to the doubted, which it is not.
>
> It shows no such thing. It is a call to present the basis for a claim,
> rather than make baseless claims.
It shows that you are asking for proof of a negative ... note the
keywords in your statement ..."provide proof" and "doesn't".
Asking for someone to prove a negative. Does it get any more basic than
that.
>
> > That is a logical fallacy. Pretending that people raising the subject
> > of your logical fallacy is itself a straw man, is circular, which
> > itself is another fallacy.
>
> Yes, but where is this said fallacy?
Asking someone to prove a negative is a fallacy. Circular reasoning is
a fallacy
> > > Me, struggle? Haha... When have you ever seen that happen?
> >
> > I see it happening right now. The fact that you are not aware of it, is
> > not my problem.
>
> Good that you see it. Now, show it.
You're showing it to everyone for me. Thanks.
>
> > > > > "No can defend";
> >
> > Seen this one used by alot of kung-fu sake guys.
>
> Nah, it's from out of the Karate Kid movies.
Yeagh, but i've seen it used by lots of folks. Didn't realize you are
claiming a monopoly on its historical usage.
> > > > > "A true BJJer";
> >
> > Heard the phrase " A real karate master" would have ... tons of times
> > too.
>
> You mean a real karate master could have his nuts bitten off, his eyes
> gouged out, his fingers broken, his head decapitated and still fight on,
> also?
Nope, just that I've heard stupid comment from and about lots of folks.
> > > > > "The only fight a BJJer loses, is the one he can't find";
> >
> > Never heard that one.
>
> I made it up. I thought it fitting.
You've been making up alot.
> > > > > "You've armbarred the butthole of bullshit."
> >
> > That expression is used when one person agrees with another.
>
> No it doesn't. It's a bastardised version of "armbarred the correct",
> meaning the opposite.
Oh, sorry to misinterpret your bastardised version. From now on, I'll
check back with you regarding basartdised version of parodical
statements.
> > Non-sequitor.
>
> No it isn't. You really should look it up.
Woops, you're right. I meant to call you're earlier statemnt a
non-sequitor. That was almost as dumb a mistake as you calling "straw
man" earlier.
> I'm not angry. GDS was being scathing, denigrating a supposed inability to
> prove that I can fight, and presenting this as grounds for ridicule. I was
> just pointing out that I've had many people laugh at me, with alot of
> confidence, at a distance. I've yet to see anyone so brave, up-close, once
> I'd had enough. Laughing at someone from a distance, don't mean shit.
Yeagh... who said it did?
-Mike K.
cate...@my-deja.com
Badger North wrote:
> Rabid Weasel wrote:
> > What exactly is "Iron Shirt" training anyway and how useful is it?
>
> My sifu taught two versions: "northern" and "southern".
seeing as you and i are probably the only two posters who have actually
done any traditional 'iron' training, i feel it meet to reply to your
post- get all the good info lumped in together, as it were. plus, you
might say something funny.
I did "Iron Vest" training, which started with a very, very rigourous
and weird set of neigung exercises- you learned 2 per month until you
had all 24, then did them all twice a day for 100 days.
i started out doing them wrong on the sly- i've never been fucked up
like that before. crikey. i had a knot like a baseball in my back for
weeks, got the flu, couldn't sleep, had hearing problems, jeebus.
then i started learning it tight, realized it was a LOT of work and
never completed the hundred days. i did learn the whole set, though.
after the neigung exercises, you would have someone go all up and down
the outside of the arms and legs and back and front and head with a
light stick, drumming on your meridians -
"to set the energy". sometimes it hurt like hell, sometimes you
couldn't feel it.
the theory was that the exercises brought energy from your various
organs and concentrated it at your extremities, and you then used
conditioning to make it stick, and then, when you were hit, your body
would repel the blow by automatically bringing your energy to that
spot.
one criticism i heard of it was that it worked, but used your vital
energy to toughen you up, thus shortening your life(or whatever)
very intense, weird practice, very satisfying, worked like a charm-
training partners complained that i was hitting and kicking way to
hard- i didn't feel like i was doing anything different- i thought they
were blocking me too softly.
everytime i've tried to pick up the practice since then, it's thrown my
back out, so i don't.
also, there was a version where you lay on your back, feet and arms
straight up in the air like a dead horse, and did visulations. never
went to far with it- the posture was too hard to maintain.
there is a "iron shirt" floating around, quite popular at one point,
from Mantak Chia, that involved hot ware, streams, hitting yourself,
walking on sharp rocks, all crazy stuff- utter bullshit. mantak chia ==
totally bogus.
carl
Shuurai
Chas wrote:
> "Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Yeah, I know how it's supposed to work - the question is, are you ever
> > going to make your skin and bones "denser" to the point where they
> > offer you any appreciable protection from serious hitting?
>
> Yes.
> not to include being bulletproof.
Let's settle for able to withstand a punch that would iunjure your
average fit person.
> > I just
> > don't think it's possible. You may be able to toughen yourself up to
> > the point where you can ignore weaker hits, but not against a serious
> > hitter.
>
> You can escalate 'serious hitter' until it's hyperbolic nonsense.
So can you - so let's agree not to do that.
> There's no doubt that targeted conditioning works.
No doubt at all?
> > Bone can become denser, but does having denser bone actually *do*
> > anything for you in terms of your ability to withstand impact? Is it
> > possible to increase the denisty of bone *that* much, so as to make a
> > notable difference? I've seen no evidence that it can.
>
> Then you've not explored the question-
> think about the archers' skeletons with the hyperconditioned right arm- or
> the swordsmen with hyperdeveloped bones- the evidence is there.
I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that either was capable of
withstanding without injury a strike that would injure someone without
their respective training.
> > I'm not saying anything about the drills, I'm saying that his theory of
> > using blood pressure to "expand" to the extent that you are protected
> > from impact, just doesn't hold water.
>
> It's his 'theory of blood-pressure' that's at question, not the efficacy of
> the training.
Which is what I said, and then said again just above.
> > In terms of your ability to withstand an impact, muscle is going to
> > have a far greater effect than any of those things - probably even all
> > of those things combined.
>
> You train all things, not just parts.
They're all connected.
> >> You *start* with a very fit body, and then refine it for 'martial' usage.
> > Agreed - the question is how best to get there.
>
> Yes; and 'targeted training' is generally thought to be the most effective.
By whom? And by whos definition of targetted training? Personally, I
think the type of training boxers do is far better than any of the
internal stuff.
> > How does the groundpath force protect you from an impact - let's say a
> > shovel hook to the gut or an uppercut to the jaw?
>
> Same way it does with anything else.
Well, that sure explains it.
> > Sure - when you're hitting the bone itself. I thought we were talking
> > about iron shirt?
>
> The skeletal aspect is important in 'iron' body conditioning.
In theory perhaps. How does it *really* work is what I'm asking. Does
any amount of "skeletal" training that a human being is capable of
doing really make a difference. And saying "yeah, it does" without
saying how is the same as saying no.
> >> What they will tell you, and show you, is that they can restrict
> >> bloodflow
> >> to the cut- check out the National Geographic on 'kris' trancers, for
> >> example.
> > To some degree, and to superficial cuts.
>
> As opposed to 'not doing it at all'- which is where everybody starts from,
> and targeted conditioning overcomes.
Of course, but the question is, does doing it really provide any real
and appreciable benefit over not doing it at all? Slowing the flow of
blood to a superficial wound is cool and all, but what do they do if
they're actually cut bad?
Chas
>> There's no doubt that targeted conditioning works.
> No doubt at all?
a metaphysical certainty.
>> Then you've not explored the question-
>> think about the archers' skeletons with the hyperconditioned right arm-
>> or
>> the swordsmen with hyperdeveloped bones- the evidence is there.
> I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that either was capable of
> withstanding without injury a strike that would injure someone without
> their respective training.
We were talking bone density from targeted training, and I gave you an
example closer to home than Asia.
And look no further than those derfi that practice with the combat ki guy-
they have a shallow veneer of training, but sufficient to demonstrate the
utility of it.
>> You train all things, not just parts.
> They're all connected.
Exactly-
training them in concert isn't an intuitive body of knowledge- it's a
scholarly study, and, when targeted towards 'martial skill', it's very
effective.
>> Yes; and 'targeted training' is generally thought to be the most
>> effective.
> By whom?
People who have actually made a study- as contrasted with judging skills on
the cinema screen, or from comedy sketches on tv.
> And by whos definition of targetted training?
Full-range martial artists.
> Personally, I
> think the type of training boxers do is far better than any of the
> internal stuff.
That's nice; thanks for sharing.
>> > How does the groundpath force protect you from an impact - let's say a
>> > shovel hook to the gut or an uppercut to the jaw?
>> Same way it does with anything else.
> Well, that sure explains it.
You used the word casually, so I assumed you knew what it means and how it
works. One of the more common demos of 'iron body' is to receive the shovel
hook- fewer demonstrators allow strikes to the head.
>> The skeletal aspect is important in 'iron' body conditioning.
> In theory perhaps.
Not a theory- instantly practical, and demonstrable using your own skeleton.
> How does it *really* work is what I'm asking.
I don't understand the question-
The skeleton performs/enables/participates in a lot of different functions
of the body- from bad posture compressing your internal organs, to being
overextended and having your joints 'open', to not fully utilizing your
available range of motion- to protecting your spinal cord, opening off into
your nerve paths- it's an anvil across which blood vessels/nerves/tendons
pass and can be attacked- you can pass off a meat injury; less so with a
skeletal one.
> Does
> any amount of "skeletal" training that a human being is capable of
> doing really make a difference. And saying "yeah, it does" without
> saying how is the same as saying no.
Sure- at the least, training is better than no-training.
More than that, the results of conditioning is evident in the skeletons of
people who've done such conditioning. Their bones are denser, thicker,
longer- less subject to stress fractures, better anchor for tendons,
stronger/more resilient cartilage/joints.
Whole body conditioning is even more effective- and targeting that
conditioning for martial usage is more effective yet.
>.....Slowing the flow of
> blood to a superficial wound is cool and all, but what do they do if
> they're actually cut bad?
They die a lot slower, and much more actively- take the juramentados, or the
guys that go amok- or accounts of what it took to kill Boxers. Along with
the blood-flow skill, they also control their pain perceptions- also work
for a greater 'enervation' (what they call 'brightening'), and a directed
intention- that is to say the motivation to continue.
You'll remember that the .38 Colt's wasn't sufficient to knock them out-
many took multiple shots and continued fighting. US troopies sent home for
.45 SAA's, or those big double action .45's- giving rise to the military
specifying large calibre handguns until the modern adoption of the 9mm.
Chas
> the theory was that the exercises brought energy from your various
> organs and concentrated it at your extremities, and you then used
> conditioning to make it stick, and then, when you were hit, your body
> would repel the blow by automatically bringing your energy to that
> spot.
Yeah; we call it 'Ratu Duri' (the Thorny King)- receiving the blow, and
using it as the platform to return to the opponent with added force. Willem
would let you hit him as hard as you cared to get back as a 'whiplash'
(petjut kilap)- Paul's body hurt you if you hit him, Victor would absorb
three or four of your best hits without visible affect, and then unload what
he'd been 'storing'.
There are multiple expressions of the skill.
> one criticism i heard of it was that it worked, but used your vital
> energy to toughen you up, thus shortening your life(or whatever)
Martial arts is more about living through the next few moments rather than
some hope of many decades of health.
It's true though- I can see the effects of some of the more toxic practices
in my own teachers, and in the physicality of the few of my training
associates that actually went ahead and did it under strict supervision.
I've always paid off the back-end of my life though. Everything after about
22 has been a surprise to me- never expected to get 40 more years to stack
on top of it.
> there is a "iron shirt" floating around, quite popular at one point,
> from Mantak Chia, that involved hot ware, streams, hitting yourself,
> walking on sharp rocks, all crazy stuff- utter bullshit. mantak chia ==
> totally bogus.
That's the general opinion from the people I know as well.
And the pharmical stuff is essential- you just can't do it without the
internal medicine and the external washes/poultices.
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
great steaming gobfuls of nonsense clipped
> Bitch, everyone's brave at a great distance.
Bitch???? You *do* like your eyes the way they are, don't you? ;>)
> I've had lots of people laugh
> at me.
Tell me something I don't know....
>Though, for some strange reason they couldn't remember what was so
> funny, up close, when I had lost my sense of humour.
Most guys don't like figting trannys.
>> But you'd be used to that, eh?
>
> Yes, I am.
Thought so. Just as an aside....so as to avoid hypocrisy in criticising something
one is not familiar with, perhaps you'd like to tell me about your experience in
training Bjj.
I mean, you knock it but you've tried it, haven't you?
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
> I'm not angry. GDS was being scathing, denigrating a supposed inability to
> prove that I can fight, and presenting this as grounds for ridicule. I was
> just pointing out that I've had many people laugh at me, with alot of
> confidence, at a distance. I've yet to see anyone so brave, up-close, once
> I'd had enough. Laughing at someone from a distance, don't mean shit.
Wayne, this I have not done. I've never mentioned your abilities. Someone claims
they can stop a knife with Iron Shirt? That's a pretty remarkable claim, and it
requires some proof if one is to take the claim seriously. Turning the argument
around and saying "You prove it *isn't so" is just silly. You can only prove a
negative by providing a positive counter claim. Let's say you say to me.."Prove
to me you were not in New York last night." I can only prove that by providing
positive proof of being elsewhere.
Proving that Iron Shirt does not have the ability to stop a knife could only be
done by someone doing it and failing. So are you going to be that crash-test
dummy?
If you have another way of proving a negative, I'd like to hear it.
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
And which categorical statement is this?
>> Let's take
>> the old whipping horse, Yellow Bamboo, as an example.
>
> Yes, let's side-track, in the hope that the original thrust of the argument
> will be forgotten.
No side-track here. Both YB and Iron Shirt claimants (and who are they anyway?)
are stating something that is quite improbable. So they gotta pony-up the proof.
If possible, I'm available to test said claims and have done so in the past. The
funny thing is, *after* the test, the cries come up "Oh, it was bullshit from the
start, you were silly to test them." <sigh>
So you go and find me an Iron Shirt person who says they can stop a knife. Get
them to sign a waiver, I'll provide the knife. Would that be proof enough, or do
you have some other way to disprove such a claim?
>> Assume a
>> scientist/physicist sees one of their tapes of no-touch KOs and decides to
>> investigate. By your 'logic' you would support their contention that the
>> scientist must engage in the activity to show his 'familiarity' with it.
> That my
>> friend, is a crock of shit.
>
> Your ass still has a ring around it, in the shape of a crock, and the shit
> is still steaming.
Evasion noted.
>> As is, all I
>> > saw was an appeal to authority.
>>
>> I thought it was a straw man argument? Gee, you gotta bone up on your
> logic 101,
>> Wayne.
>
> Two seperate arguments. Pay attention.
No point in us discussing logic, as you clearly don't have a clue.
>> I used to teach this back in the day, and for a modest stipend I could
>> even teach it to you via correspondence. You got a credit card?
>
> I coulda been a contenda!
Hey, Western Union is OK too.
Gernot Hassenpflug
> "Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> If it's anything at all it's probably got a lot to do with isometrics.
>> Stronger muscles absorb more impact, allow you to take hits better.
>
> An indispensable part of 'iron shirt' is taking dietary supplements, and
> using jows. That's combined with very basic physical conditioning to toughen
> the skin/muscles and to make your bones denser.
> There is no doubt that targeted conditioning increases function- if you
> target martial attributes, you get greater martial function.
>
>> Umm, no. No matter how deep you're breathing, /../
>
> Only because of the failure to communicate the training technique, and it's
> results- not the efficacy of the drills themselves. /../
Hello Chas,
It would be interesting to hear Mike Sigman's comments on this. His
insights (when he has enough knowledge to base them on) usually bring
to the fore what critical basic preliminary goals appropriate training
needs to aim for. The advanced stuff is all then grounded in that
training kernel. (Mike is IIRC in Europe for several weeks.)
From what I've gathered, the dietary supplements, jow and so on would
not be the critical elements (but I could be wrong of course), but an
adjunct to the, for argument's sake let's call it so, "fascia"
training, maybe to increase flexibility of the fascia around areas
hard to "work" with the breathing and "suit training"
alone. Basically, I get the idea that any localized stuff is a red
herring. Sort of like concentrating on moving the foot at the ankle,
and not realizing how that motion is part of a concerted
muscle/tendon/fascia/bone/breath array going throughout the body right
the way to the fingertips and modulated somewhere in the waist.
>> Mostly comes down to having stronger, more toned muscle mass acting as
>> a shock absorber.
>
> And stronger bones, stronger tendons/cartilage- and that's what comes from
> the dietary supplements like shark cartilage (glucosamine chondraiton), deer
> hooves (gelatin), insect shells (chitin), and the external washes (like
> dipping in brine/seawater to toughen boxers' hands).
> You *start* with a very fit body, and then refine it for 'martial' usage.
I certainly agree with the last part here, but I really don't know
what to think about the dietary stuff. Western science is apparently
nowhere near understanding the complex web of interactions in diet to
allow such generalized useage to be made, and as I know zero about
Eastern dietary education (living in Japan doesn't count) I haven't a
clue where to start. Do the people you train(ed) with know exactly
(possibly intuitively) how what affects the body how (and when if an
order is involved)? Can they (and you) feel how a progression happens
in the body? I am assuming a use in conjunction with the ("chi")
exercises, under whose influence the change in the body form happens
(what the Japanese call "bujutsutai", or martial body). In other
words, are there demands of the body during this change (and after,
while doing the exercises) that call for enhanced useage of certain
compounds in the diet. Speculation: I think that if this were not the
case, the forcing of compounds into the diet would not help very much
at all (excreted again as unnecessary?). Further speculation: Also, a
matter of "training disparity" (a phrase I recently invented and found
quite useful) may be seen here - only the very very top people may
feel the need and gain the benefit of this dietary change as only a
few hours a day of practice might not induce the body to require more
than it already gleans from the usual mix (I have read that the body's
system is so flexible that can produce many forms of amino acids and
so forth as it needs them). Any comments welcome.
>>> Such as ability to use entire body to absorb forces rather
>>> than just a single muscle or small area.
>> Which is accomplished how?
>
> Learning to groundpath force, and training the body to work on the level of
> its integument muscle sheath. The requisite mental state is sufficient only
> in that it provides a model that the body works out 'sub' consciously.
This is my thinking of late also.
> None of those statements is particularly true.
> 'Muscle' is not as important as 'correctly muscled'.
> Strong bones will protect you from a lot of affect from hard hits- shins,
> forearms, head. And with strong bones come strong joints/tendons.
> You have your own idea of what constitutes a 'real hit', but I assure you
> that targeted conditioning works, and the adept's body changes in
> appropriate ways- including becoming 'denser'.
I wonder if part of the effect is due to that it is to some degree
illusory: the force of the opponent is simply not going there where
the opponent thinks it is going. From what I gather from watching my
teacher up in Tokyo (Minoru Akuzawa) and the discussions on Mike
Sigman's QiJing list, the force is diverted and dispersed across the
body, in particular not absorbed so much as flowed away ("nagasu") so
that it does NOT remain in the body. For example, the struck person
may flow that strike into shakes of some of the limbs as the force is
dispersed into motion there, even let one limb (as a demonstration) be
flung out. Of course, moving the whole body is possible also. So yes,
bona fide physiological effects are there as a result of the training,
but like any structure, the ability to take a force depends on how
that structure is constructed more than its strength at any particular
isolated point (measured when taken out of the structure and tested
again a completely rigid surface).
--
Gernot Hassenpflug (ger...@rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp) Tel: +81 774 38-3866
JSPS Fellow (Rm.403, RISH, Kyoto Uni.) Fax: +81 774 31-8463
www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/radar-group/members/gernot Mob: +81 90 39493924
Gernot Hassenpflug
> "theoriginaldimi" <theorig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161674566.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Rabid Weasel schreef:
>>
>>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>>>
>>> What exactly is "Iron Shirt" training anyway and how useful is it?
>>>
>>> I mean, I know what the ChopSocky flicks say it is; invulnerable skin,
>>> etc. But what is it exactly.
>>>
>>> And just how useful is it anyway. Doesn't look much like it'll stop a
>>> knife or keep you from being choked out. Or does it?
>>>
>>> Peace favor your sword (IH),
>>> Kirk
>>
>> There's only one decent sentence that uses "Iron" and "Shirt" and it is
>> :
>>
>> "Iron my fucking shirt, bitch".
>>
>> Dimitri
>
> Upcoming.....Dimi's new book "Marital Bliss My Way - or Fucking Else!"
Yeah... like this:
Guy and woman who've never met and are married to other people get to
share same compartment on an overnight train. Embarassing but they're
tired and soon fall asleep in the confined little space, he in the top
bunk, she in the lower.
At 1AM the guy wakes up freezing, and reaches down to tap the lady on
the shoulder (OK, schmuck). She wakes up and he asks her, "excuse me,
it's freezing, could you reach into the drawer by your bunk and pass
me an extra blanket please?"
She answers, "You know what, just for tonight, why don't we pretend
we're married?"
The guy gets all excited and goes "Hey. that's agreat idea!"
The woman answers, "Good! Then go get your own fucking blanket!"
After a moment of silence he farts loudly.
Chas
> It would be interesting to hear Mike Sigman's comments on this. His
> insights (when he has enough knowledge to base them on) usually bring
> to the fore what critical basic preliminary goals appropriate training
> needs to aim for. The advanced stuff is all then grounded in that
> training kernel. (Mike is IIRC in Europe for several weeks.)
Yeah- his own regimen is very rigorous. His wife is a Doctor, so I would
think that he tends to his nutrition and so on.
Mike can groundpath very strong blows- he trains by pounding himself with
rocks in a very measured manner. His training equipment is very resistant;
stone balls, lead weights and so on.
> From what I've gathered, the dietary supplements, jow and so on would
> not be the critical elements (but I could be wrong of course), but an
> adjunct to the, for argument's sake let's call it so, "fascia"
> training, maybe to increase flexibility of the fascia around areas
> hard to "work" with the breathing and "suit training"
> alone.
Some sorts of training can be very destructive to your body if you don't
pre-condition for it- and there are a dozen types of jow, and a thousand
variations for each type.
Depending on what you're doing, is what sort of supplements and linament one
would need.
It's not my particular area of expertise, but I'm under the impression that
the internal community is particularly adept with the pharmacoepia.
> Basically, I get the idea that any localized stuff is a red
> herring. Sort of like concentrating on moving the foot at the ankle,
> and not realizing how that motion is part of a concerted
> muscle/tendon/fascia/bone/breath array going throughout the body right
> the way to the fingertips and modulated somewhere in the waist.
Yeah- the contrast being the guys that cultivate a body weapon by very high
reps in training- the 'diamonds'; refined callus nodules and so on.
> I certainly agree with the last part here, but I really don't know
> what to think about the dietary stuff.
Westerners have long recommended calves-foot jelly for stronger nails/hair.
We now eat shark cartilage for the glucosamine-chondraitin supplement, we
know that chitin strengthens tendons and makes bones heal more quickly or
completely.
We use a lot of the materials that the Chinese pharmacoepia includes- and
they find value in some things we're loathe to consume in their natural
form. Some ingredients in some jows are very toxic- it's their toxicity that
toughens the skin, but you shouldn't put it on an open wound anywhere.
> ...... Do the people you train(ed) with know exactly
> (possibly intuitively) how what affects the body how (and when if an
> order is involved)? Can they (and you) feel how a progression happens
> in the body?
Everybody I've known either was an authority, or consulted authorities- they
all use herbal compounds (animal, vegetable, sea-life, minerals...),
internally and externally. They all have an understanding of the learning
process- it's stages, common corrections, common mistakes and fixes.
> ...... Any comments welcome.
You're right- given that there are a myriad of ways to approach the
training, as well as a wide range of standards as to what attributes are
favored.
> I wonder if part of the effect is due to that it is to some degree
> illusory: the force of the opponent is simply not going there where
> the opponent thinks it is going.
Oh hell yes-
and a number of ways to make it happen, and more ways in which it expresses
itself.
> .....For example, the struck person
> may flow that strike into shakes of some of the limbs as the force is
> dispersed into motion there, even let one limb (as a demonstration) be
> flung out.
Yeah- the de Thouars' family art specializes in a whiplash action; very
responsive to changes in balance/position/focus.
Badger North
cate...@my-deja.com wrote:
> seeing as you and i are probably the only two posters who have actually
> done any traditional 'iron' training, i feel it meet to reply to your
> post- get all the good info lumped in together, as it were. plus, you
> might say something funny.
Funny "ha-ha" or funny... never mind, don't need to know.
> I did "Iron Vest" training, which started with a very, very rigourous
> and weird set of neigung exercises- you learned 2 per month until you
> had all 24, then did them all twice a day for 100 days.
Most of the stuff in the training I received was pretty much
straight-forward, hit hit hit. One odd one was fingertip strikes on
the thenar nerve (in the muscle between the base of the thumb and index
finger). Before hitting the kidneys, you would rub the top of your
fists into the area a couple dozen times in one direction, then
reverse.
> i started out doing them wrong on the sly- i've never been fucked up
> like that before. crikey. i had a knot like a baseball in my back for
> weeks, got the flu, couldn't sleep, had hearing problems, jeebus.
For me it was the calf muscles - they'd just spontaneously start
spasming, going into "sewing machine" mode.
> after the neigung exercises, you would have someone go all up and down
> the outside of the arms and legs and back and front and head with a
> light stick, drumming on your meridians -
> "to set the energy". sometimes it hurt like hell, sometimes you
> couldn't feel it.
A couple times, my sifu would whack my legs with a folded
three-sectional staff, and it always hurt like hell.
> the theory was that the exercises brought energy from your various
> organs and concentrated it at your extremities, and you then used
> conditioning to make it stick, and then, when you were hit, your body
> would repel the blow by automatically bringing your energy to that
> spot.
The southern iron shirt method I described earlier had similar
theories. The lowest level (the slapping) was aptly called 'tearing
the skin', and the idea was that the energy would fill the space
between layers of skin, ballooning it in essence.
> everytime i've tried to pick up the practice since then, it's thrown my
> back out, so i don't.
I stopped after I had been doing it for a couple months, when my sifu
casually mentioned that I was supposed to contract my anus on each hit,
and that if I didn't, I'd eventually develop incontinence.
Well, if you forgot to mention *that*, what the hell else happened to
slip your mind? Should I expect my balls to roll down my pant legs
anytime soon?
> also, there was a version where you lay on your back, feet and arms
> straight up in the air like a dead horse, and did visulations. never
> went to far with it- the posture was too hard to maintain.
There are many, many chi kung systems that have died out because the
practitioner's girlfriend walked into the room and laughed.
> there is a "iron shirt" floating around, quite popular at one point,
> from Mantak Chia, that involved hot ware, streams, hitting yourself,
> walking on sharp rocks, all crazy stuff- utter bullshit. mantak chia ==
> totally bogus.
I had Mantak Chia's iron shirt book for a while. Although he kept
babbling on about what iron shirt was supposed to do for you, in
regards to impact resistance, it didn't read like he really believed
what he was selling. Anyway, overall his book just presented your
typical Chinese keep-fit program, interlarded with vague bullshit
metaphysics.
Badger "Toad, of the Five Deadly Venoms" North
www.youngforest.ca
Wayne Dobson
> > The subject at hand is what the claims are based on, not the claims
> > themselves.
> >
> > > I guess that is the problem with nay saying.
> >
> > Nah, I would say that it would be more to do with poor comprehension.
>
> So, going back to where you asked someone to prove a negative ...
So, what is your point?
> > > One can only logically assume that
> > > your opinjion is contray to that are doing the nay-saying.
> >
> > Failing assumption, one could bother oneself to actually read what was
> > written.
>
> Read it all, and understood it all as it was written.
No, you are understanding your own spurious interpretation, which does not
tally with what was written.
> > > "> Well, let's see what you do. Please provide proof that Iron Shirt
> > > training
> > > > doesn't help at all, against a knife. "
> > >
> > > Which shows conclusively that you think it is the doubters onus to
> > > provide credibility to the doubted, which it is not.
> >
> > It shows no such thing. It is a call to present the basis for a claim,
> > rather than make baseless claims.
>
> It shows that you are asking for proof of a negative ...
Yes. What is your point?
> note the keywords in your statement ..."provide proof" and "doesn't".
Try to pay attention to the fact that you are reiterating a point which has
not been disputed.
> Asking for someone to prove a negative.
Yes.
> Does it get any more basic than that.
Does what get any more basic?
> > > That is a logical fallacy. Pretending that people raising the subject
> > > of your logical fallacy is itself a straw man, is circular, which
> > > itself is another fallacy.
> >
> > Yes, but where is this said fallacy?
>
> Asking someone to prove a negative is a fallacy.
No it isn't.
> Circular reasoning is a fallacy
I don't think so.
> > > > Me, struggle? Haha... When have you ever seen that happen?
> > >
> > > I see it happening right now. The fact that you are not aware of it,
is
> > > not my problem.
> >
> > Good that you see it. Now, show it.
>
> You're showing it to everyone for me. Thanks.
Sadly, for you, you are wrong. Haha...
> > > > > > "No can defend";
> > >
> > > Seen this one used by alot of kung-fu sake guys.
> >
> > Nah, it's from out of the Karate Kid movies.
>
> Yeagh, but i've seen it used by lots of folks. Didn't realize you are
> claiming a monopoly on its historical usage.
Neither did I.
> > > > > > "A true BJJer";
> > >
> > > Heard the phrase " A real karate master" would have ... tons of times
> > > too.
> >
> > You mean a real karate master could have his nuts bitten off, his eyes
> > gouged out, his fingers broken, his head decapitated and still fight on,
> > also?
>
> Nope, just that I've heard stupid comment from and about lots of folks.
Well, those folks don't sound like real warriors. It even looks as if they
would have to stop fighting after being disembowelled.
> > > > > > "The only fight a BJJer loses, is the one he can't find";
> > >
> > > Never heard that one.
> >
> > I made it up. I thought it fitting.
>
> You've been making up alot.
It's called 'creativity.'
> > > > > > "You've armbarred the butthole of bullshit."
> > >
> > > That expression is used when one person agrees with another.
> >
> > No it doesn't. It's a bastardised version of "armbarred the correct",
> > meaning the opposite.
>
> Oh, sorry to misinterpret your bastardised version. From now on, I'll
> check back with you regarding basartdised version of parodical
> statements.
Or bother to read what was actually written.
> > > Non-sequitor.
> >
> > No it isn't. You really should look it up.
>
> Woops, you're right. I meant to call you're earlier statemnt a
> non-sequitor. That was almost as dumb a mistake as you calling "straw
> man" earlier.
Right. You only admitted that it was a dumb mistake, because of a mistaken
belief that I had also made a dumb mistake. Unfortunately, you are wrong,
twice.
> > I'm not angry. GDS was being scathing, denigrating a supposed inability
to
> > prove that I can fight, and presenting this as grounds for ridicule. I
was
> > just pointing out that I've had many people laugh at me, with alot of
> > confidence, at a distance. I've yet to see anyone so brave, up-close,
once
> > I'd had enough. Laughing at someone from a distance, don't mean shit.
>
> Yeagh... who said it did?
Try spelling it "yeah." The same spelling error, repeated, is hurting my
eyes.
Wayne Dobson
>
> >> If GDS had made some effort to present evidence that
> >> > he was familiar with Iron Shirt training, it's typical benefits and
> > reasons
> >> > why such training extrapolated even to an extreme, met with some
> > limiting
> >> > factor which prevented any reasonable degree of protection against a
> > knife
> >> > attack, being attained, I would have been more than satisfied.
> >>
> >> This is complete baloney. I don't have to prove evidence of familiarity
> > with
> >> something to take a disinterested view that its claims are suspect.
> >
> > You did more than that. You made a categorical statement.
>
> And which categorical statement is this?
That Iron Shirt training would not help at all, to stop a knife attack.
> >> Let's take
> >> the old whipping horse, Yellow Bamboo, as an example.
> >
> > Yes, let's side-track, in the hope that the original thrust of the
argument
> > will be forgotten.
>
> No side-track here. Both YB and Iron Shirt claimants (and who are they
anyway?)
> are stating something that is quite improbable. So they gotta pony-up the
proof.
> If possible, I'm available to test said claims and have done so in the
past. The
> funny thing is, *after* the test, the cries come up "Oh, it was bullshit
from the
> start, you were silly to test them." <sigh>
Perhaps if you broaden the argument, sufficiently, the main point of the
argument will get lost in the morass.
> So you go and find me an Iron Shirt person who says they can stop a knife.
Get
> them to sign a waiver, I'll provide the knife. Would that be proof enough,
or do
> you have some other way to disprove such a claim?
Right after you go find me a live dinosour, preferably fire-breathing.
> >> Assume a
> >> scientist/physicist sees one of their tapes of no-touch KOs and decides
to
> >> investigate. By your 'logic' you would support their contention that
the
> >> scientist must engage in the activity to show his 'familiarity' with
it.
> > That my
> >> friend, is a crock of shit.
> >
> > Your ass still has a ring around it, in the shape of a crock, and the
shit
> > is still steaming.
>
> Evasion noted.
Then stop doing it. It's tiresome to have to keep pointing it out to you.
> >> As is, all I
> >> > saw was an appeal to authority.
> >>
> >> I thought it was a straw man argument? Gee, you gotta bone up on your
> > logic 101,
> >> Wayne.
> >
> > Two seperate arguments. Pay attention.
>
> No point in us discussing logic, as you clearly don't have a clue.
I'm afraid that you are the one who has gotten in a muddle.
Wayne Dobson
>
> "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:Ffs%g.70802$3D1....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> > I'm not angry. GDS was being scathing, denigrating a supposed inability
to
> > prove that I can fight, and presenting this as grounds for ridicule. I
was
> > just pointing out that I've had many people laugh at me, with alot of
> > confidence, at a distance. I've yet to see anyone so brave, up-close,
once
> > I'd had enough. Laughing at someone from a distance, don't mean shit.
>
> Wayne, this I have not done. I've never mentioned your abilities. Someone
claims
> they can stop a knife with Iron Shirt?
Nobody has made such a claim in this thread.
> That's a pretty remarkable claim, and it
> requires some proof if one is to take the claim seriously. Turning the
argument
> around and saying "You prove it *isn't so" is just silly.
I didn't turn the argument around. I merely asked you to present proof of
your assertion, in the same way that you expected others to present proof of
their's.
> You can only prove a negative by providing a positive counter claim.
> Let's say you say to me.."Prove
> to me you were not in New York last night." I can only prove that by
providing
> positive proof of being elsewhere.
Yes. I do understand logic.
> Proving that Iron Shirt does not have the ability to stop a knife could
only be
> done by someone doing it and failing. So are you going to be that
crash-test
> dummy?
No.
> If you have another way of proving a negative, I'd like to hear it.
I don't. Never claimed to.
Mike
coherent assemblage.
> > So, going back to where you asked someone to prove a negative ...
>
> So, what is your point?
> > It shows that you are asking for proof of a negative ...
>
> Yes. What is your point?
> > Asking someone to prove a negative is a fallacy.
>
> No it isn't.
> > Asking for someone to prove a negative.
>
> Yes.
Not only is "proving a negative" a logical fallacy, it is one of the
leading candidates. Time for you to come out of your cave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
> > Circular reasoning is a fallacy
>
> I don't think so.
Right, you don't think. Nuff said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
> > Read it all, and understood it all as it was written.
>
> No, you are understanding your own spurious interpretation, which does not
> tally with what was written.
You gonna put down some real words with some semblance of a real
argument to back yourself up, or are you just going to keep on spouting
garbage?
> > Asking for someone to prove a negative.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Does it get any more basic than that.
>
> Does what get any more basic?
Your obvious attempt at stupidity.
> > > > > Me, struggle? Haha... When have you ever seen that happen?
> > > >
> > > > I see it happening right now. The fact that you are not aware of it,
> is
> > > > not my problem.
> > >
> > > Good that you see it. Now, show it.
> >
> > You're showing it to everyone for me. Thanks.
>
> Sadly, for you, you are wrong. Haha...
Uh sure... keep yapping puppy.
> > > I made it up. I thought it fitting.
> >
> > You've been making up alot.
>
> It's called 'creativity.'
It's called garbage.
> > > > Non-sequitor.
> > >
> > > No it isn't. You really should look it up.
> >
> > Woops, you're right. I meant to call you're earlier statemnt a
> > non-sequitor. That was almost as dumb a mistake as you calling "straw
> > man" earlier.
>
> Right. You only admitted that it was a dumb mistake, because of a mistaken
> belief that I had also made a dumb mistake. Unfortunately, you are wrong,
> twice.
Nah, I retracted my statemnt immediately when my error was pointed out.
Unlike you who continues to drown in your own "creativity". Has the
fact that your lungs are deprived of oxygen reached your brain yet?
> Try spelling it "yeah." The same spelling error, repeated, is hurting my
> eyes.
Try sidestepping more. Dance for me pup.
-Mike K.
Mike
Not that you've shown.
I for one cannot prove that you don't understand logic, perhaps you are
merely trying to appear dense.
I can only point out that your arguments are illogical. If that was
your intent, then WELL DONE!
Oh and by the way, your little tirade about GDS's *scathing* remarks is
laughable at best. If this is any indication of how you react to
situations in real life, then it's no wonder that people laugh at you.
And it's also no wonder why they stop laughing when you "confront
them".
Everyone stops laughing when the retarded kid gets all angry. They
didn't realize he was retarded in the first place and they feel bad.
Now go learn something.
Suck it up. Be a man
-Mike K.
Mike
> didn't realize he was retarded in the first place and they feel bad.
>
> Now go learn something.
>
> Suck it up. Be a man
>
> -Mike K.
I generally don't like to respond to my own posts, but I realized I was
being a bit of a hypocrite here, by laughing at Dobbie.
After all, it isn't his fault.
*I sorry*
-Mike K.
Wayne Dobson
> I'll take dobbie's comments out of order and group them in a more
> coherent assemblage.
>
> > > So, going back to where you asked someone to prove a negative ...
> >
> > So, what is your point?
>
> > > It shows that you are asking for proof of a negative ...
> >
> > Yes. What is your point?
Again, what is your point?
Is this getting too complicated for you?
> > > Asking someone to prove a negative is a fallacy.
> >
> > No it isn't.
You skipped over this bit.
> > > Asking for someone to prove a negative.
> >
> > Yes.
>
>
> Not only is "proving a negative" a logical fallacy, it is one of the
> leading candidates. Time for you to come out of your cave.
First off, what you said, doesn't exist. But let's address what you meant.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
It appears that you don't comprehend well, what you read. Note:
[ The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical
fallacy of the following form:
"X exists because there is no proof that X doesn't exist." ]
Show me where I committed that fallacy.
> > > Circular reasoning is a fallacy
> >
> > I don't think so.
>
> Right, you don't think. Nuff said.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastic ]
[ Sarcasm is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person, situation or thing. It
is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a
type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound[1] -- stating the opposite
of the intended meaning, e.g. using "that's amazing" to mean "that's
awful". ]
> > > Read it all, and understood it all as it was written.
> >
> > No, you are understanding your own spurious interpretation, which does
not
> > tally with what was written.
>
> You gonna put down some real words with some semblance of a real
> argument to back yourself up, or are you just going to keep on spouting
> garbage?
False dichotomy. Your argument is fallacious. Please explain why you have
critized my alleged use of fallacious arguments, while furnishing your own.
> > > Asking for someone to prove a negative.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Does it get any more basic than that.
> >
> > Does what get any more basic?
>
> Your obvious attempt at stupidity.
In this regard, I'd rather attempt, than to actually succeed.
> > > > > > Me, struggle? Haha... When have you ever seen that happen?
> > > > >
> > > > > I see it happening right now. The fact that you are not aware of
it,
> > is
> > > > > not my problem.
> > > >
> > > > Good that you see it. Now, show it.
> > >
> > > You're showing it to everyone for me. Thanks.
> >
> > Sadly, for you, you are wrong. Haha...
>
> Uh sure... keep yapping puppy.
You've lost the argument. It just hasn't been pointed out to you, yet.
> > > > I made it up. I thought it fitting.
> > >
> > > You've been making up alot.
> >
> > It's called 'creativity.'
>
> It's called garbage.
It isn't wise to denigrate someone whom you have lost to.
> > > > > Non-sequitor.
> > > >
> > > > No it isn't. You really should look it up.
> > >
> > > Woops, you're right. I meant to call you're earlier statemnt a
> > > non-sequitor. That was almost as dumb a mistake as you calling "straw
> > > man" earlier.
> >
> > Right. You only admitted that it was a dumb mistake, because of a
mistaken
> > belief that I had also made a dumb mistake. Unfortunately, you are
wrong,
> > twice.
>
> Nah, I retracted my statemnt immediately when my error was pointed out.
Haha... I like that. Hahaha... It's going to make the real hammer blow
real interesting to observe, since you are unaware of how flawed your
position is.
> Unlike you who continues to drown in your own "creativity". Has the
> fact that your lungs are deprived of oxygen reached your brain yet?
I doubt there are many here who think you are smarter than me.
> > Try spelling it "yeah." The same spelling error, repeated, is hurting
my
> > eyes.
>
> Try sidestepping more. Dance for me pup.
Hahaha... It's like observing someone standing in a pool of piss, laughing
at others.
Wayne Dobson
> > Yes. I do understand logic.
>
> Not that you've shown.
I don't show, I demonstrate.
> I for one cannot prove that you don't understand logic, perhaps you are
> merely trying to appear dense.
Your conceit is to assume that logic is confined to the elements that you
understand. You are also trying to prove a negative.
> I can only point out that your arguments are illogical.
Point out which arguments and why. You have yet to do that.
> If that was your intent, then WELL DONE!
>
> Oh and by the way, your little tirade about GDS's *scathing* remarks is
> laughable at best. If this is any indication of how you react to
> situations in real life, then it's no wonder that people laugh at you.
> And it's also no wonder why they stop laughing when you "confront
> them".
>
> Everyone stops laughing when the retarded kid gets all angry. They
> didn't realize he was retarded in the first place and they feel bad.
>
> Now go learn something.
>
> Suck it up. Be a man
I actually find the tedious people on here more offensive than the ones who
are trying to be offensive. In this respect, you may take some small
comfort in succeeding where others have failed.
Mike
Oh, ok. You asked someone else to commit such a fallacy. Woo woo!
You got me ...arrrghh. *opens eye*. I'm dead, pup.
> > > > Circular reasoning is a fallacy
> > >
> > > I don't think so.
> >
> > Right, you don't think. Nuff said.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
>
> [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastic ]
>
> [ Sarcasm is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person, situation or thing. It
> is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a
> type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound[1] -- stating the opposite
> of the intended meaning, e.g. using "that's amazing" to mean "that's
> awful". ]
And now, you are going to claim "sarcasm". Nice ...
yap yap yap
> False dichotomy. Your argument is fallacious. Please explain why you have
> critized my alleged use of fallacious arguments, while furnishing your own.
False dichotomy.
Please show me where my argument is fallacious.
> > Your obvious attempt at stupidity.
>
> In this regard, I'd rather attempt, than to actually succeed.
You've done both.
> It isn't wise to denigrate someone whom you have lost to.
Uhuh.
> Haha... I like that. Hahaha... It's going to make the real hammer blow
> real interesting to observe, since you are unaware of how flawed your
> position is.
Please don't hold back for fear of hurting my feelings!
Interesting to observe ...sad.
> > Unlike you who continues to drown in your own "creativity". Has the
> > fact that your lungs are deprived of oxygen reached your brain yet?
>
> I doubt there are many here who think you are smarter than me.
You doubt? What do you want to do, take a poll?
Where did this come from anyway? Do you want to bet whether your daddy
is stronger than mine?
Woo woo!
Hey, point out some of my grammatical errors too!
-Mike K.
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
> I didn't turn the argument around. I merely asked you to present proof of
> your assertion, in the same way that you expected others to present proof of
> their's.
This is where you eror lies my friend. You believe there is no difference between
the assertion of a positive and proving a negative.
It's a simple process to refute. Just tell me how I can prove the negative. The
positive assertion is 'That Iron Shirt can stop a knife'.
I'm not saying that this is impossible, I'm just saying it requires proof.
Uttering the statement 'Well, prove it can't' can only be validated if the
positive is refuted.
The claims of Yellow Bamboo were exactly the same, and were refuted when the
assertion was shown by demonstration to be untrue.
Hope this helps, and the invoice is in the mail.
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
> "GreendistantNOSPAMstar" <Greendis...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:_Ky%g.52515$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> >> If GDS had made some effort to present evidence that
>> >> > he was familiar with Iron Shirt training, it's typical benefits and
>> > reasons
>> >> > why such training extrapolated even to an extreme, met with some
>> > limiting
>> >> > factor which prevented any reasonable degree of protection against a
>> > knife
>> >> > attack, being attained, I would have been more than satisfied.
>> >>
>> >> This is complete baloney. I don't have to prove evidence of familiarity
>> > with
>> >> something to take a disinterested view that its claims are suspect.
>> >
>> > You did more than that. You made a categorical statement.
>>
>> And which categorical statement is this?
>
> That Iron Shirt training would not help at all, to stop a knife attack.
Well, let's look at what was said...
"Doesn't look much like it'll stop a knife or keep you from being choked out. Or
does it?"
"No, it wouldn't help in these circumstances at all, and any claims to the
contrary would require some supporting proof."
So, where's the supporting proof?
If you're claiming it would help, the onus is on you to prove it, not me to prove
the negatve.
If you disagree with this last clause, please tell me how I could prove the
negative of the assertion. Be precise...tell me EXACTLY what I would have to do
to do this.
Legions of philosophers over millenia have failed in attempts to prove the
negative, but you seem to think it's possible.
Philosophers worldwide eagerly await your response...please don't disappoint
them.
Gernot Hassenpflug
> "Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@mb3.seikyou.ne.jp> wrote
>> /snipped/
> Some sorts of training can be very destructive to your body if you don't
> pre-condition for it- and there are a dozen types of jow, and a thousand
> variations for each type.
> Depending on what you're doing, is what sort of supplements and linament one
> would need.
> It's not my particular area of expertise, but I'm under the impression that
> the internal community is particularly adept with the pharmacoepia.
Point taken. No chance without first finding an expert willing to
teach. Plus the courage to experiment on one's own body.
>> Basically, I get the idea that any localized stuff is a red
>> herring. Sort of like concentrating on moving the foot at the ankle,
>> and not realizing how that motion is part of a concerted
>> muscle/tendon/fascia/bone/breath array going throughout the body right
>> the way to the fingertips and modulated somewhere in the waist.
>
> Yeah- the contrast being the guys that cultivate a body weapon by very high
> reps in training- the 'diamonds'; refined callus nodules and so on.
That's an interesting point. Since the core of the training is the
same (if not, I can't argue this!) I thought that the hardness of a
particular body area comes not from separate training methodology by
from focussing more and more on some detail while not forgetting the
whole body (which after all supports that one area of focus). Mike
said that while one could do "external" training to harden a body
part, a higher level of training would give the same result using just
the "chi" or internal methods. So even if someone trains one part to
be really extraordinarily developed, this doesn't necessarily speak of
an opposite methodology. Any comments from your experience?
> Westerners have long recommended calves-foot jelly for stronger nails/hair.
> We now eat shark cartilage for the glucosamine-chondraitin supplement, we
> know that chitin strengthens tendons and makes bones heal more quickly or
> completely.
> We use a lot of the materials that the Chinese pharmacoepia includes- and
> they find value in some things we're loathe to consume in their natural
> form. Some ingredients in some jows are very toxic- it's their toxicity that
> toughens the skin, but you shouldn't put it on an open wound anywhere.
OK, I just didn't know these details. I'm looking around for someone
at the moment. Managed to get hold of one guy who knows something,
might get to meet his teacher down in Kyushu.
> Everybody I've known either was an authority, or consulted authorities- they
> all use herbal compounds (animal, vegetable, sea-life, minerals...),
> internally and externally. They all have an understanding of the learning
> process- it's stages, common corrections, common mistakes and fixes.
Makes sense, sort of what I supposed. The dietary version of the "chi"
exercises for body development with stages, feedback, common fixes and
corrections along the way for the mistakes everyone gets to make as
they progress.
Thanks a lot, good info for me in there.
theoriginaldimi
Wayne Dobson schreef:
> "Mike" <mkor...@nd.edu> wrote in message
> news:1161791654.5...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Yes. I do understand logic.
> >
> > Not that you've shown.
>
> I don't show, I demonstrate.
Then do it, you little wanker. Step up and let an rma'er close to you
stab you in the fucking ass (no need to kill you for your ignorance).
C'mon, you know your iron shirt will save you, don't you.
Dimitri
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
Ha ha, nice one. I suspect Wayne may actually be Bender from Futurama....so his
'shiny metal ass' will be his protection.
theoriginaldimi
GreendistantNOSPAMstar schreef:
The main challenge will be not to poke him in the large, gaping hole
between his hairy ass cheeks.
Dimitri
Fraser Johnston
No shit. When we were kids we used to throw rocks in and wait for them to hit
the bottom. I'm 32 now and still waiting.
Fraser
theoriginaldimi
Fraser Johnston schreef:
Thanks for throwing in those sharp ones. I spliced my knob on one of
them!
(Then again I'm hung a bit bigger then the rma average of +/-12 inches)
Dimitri
Rabid Weasel
Maybe he's a warbot and his skintanium armor will protect him.
Chas
> Point taken. No chance without first finding an expert willing to
> teach. Plus the courage to experiment on one's own body.
Absolutely- they talk about stuff like 'blood clots', 'stroke', toxins
locked into your organs,.....
The people that I've known who actually did it all got hurt from it- it's
not meant to be 'healthy', it's meant to expand your martial capacity.
And it's very painful, and very intimidating- Willem was doing stuff like
boiling up four quarts of water, throwing a half-dozen dimes into it, and
picking them all off the bottom to 'open' his skin for the application of
the jow; uberscary. Bill Chang had four/five 'diamonds' on each hand- he
advised not to do it. Look in Victor's last tapes- the white crust on his
hands/arms/feet is from the toxic jow he used- he's suffering a neuropathy
from the toxicity now; progressive and irreversible so far. Randall Goodwin
has a legacy; so does Gartin.....
If you're not actually going to be a 'warrior', there's no reason to do such
things.
And you can't pick&choose which drills you'll do and what you'll leave out.
>......I thought that the hardness of a
> particular body area comes not from separate training methodology by
> from focussing more and more on some detail while not forgetting the
> whole body (which after all supports that one area of focus).
The differences are in the toxicity and application of the jows, more than
the simple repetition of exercise (although that's important)-
Willem let me handle his hands when he was going through a particularly
rigorous stage- you can see the affect in some of the tapes- his hands look
'charcoal' color up to about six inches above his wrists. Up close, you
could see a pattern of tiny black lines- like spiderwebbing; that's what
gave the color. The texture of his skin was dry and 'hard'; the musculature
was like hard rubber even when 'relaxed'. You'll notice that he has huge
hands for his body-size; all a matter of conditioning- same with Victor.
> Mike
> said that while one could do "external" training to harden a body
> part, a higher level of training would give the same result using just
> the "chi" or internal methods. So even if someone trains one part to
> be really extraordinarily developed, this doesn't necessarily speak of
> an opposite methodology. Any comments from your experience?
Everybody I've known maintains that what they do is 'internal'. Mike and I
have had a long-standing dispute about whether that's true or not.
The things I know seem to have elements of both- some of the practitioners
go so far as to adhere to rigorous sleep scheduling, prayer/chanting, mental
visualization, as well as physical drills and pharmacological use.
Wayne Dobson
> > I'll take dobbie's comments out of order and group them in a more
> > coherent assemblage.
> >
> > > > So, going back to where you asked someone to prove a negative ...
> > >
> > > So, what is your point?
> >
> > > > It shows that you are asking for proof of a negative ...
> > >
> > > Yes. What is your point?
>
> Again, what is your point?
>
> Is this getting too complicated for you?
>
> > > > Asking someone to prove a negative is a fallacy.
> > >
> > > No it isn't.
>
> You skipped over this bit.
>
> > > > Asking for someone to prove a negative.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> >
> > Not only is "proving a negative" a logical fallacy, it is one of the
> > leading candidates. Time for you to come out of your cave.
>
> First off, what you said, doesn't exist. But let's address what you
meant.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
>
> It appears that you don't comprehend well, what you read. Note:
>
> [ The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical
> fallacy of the following form:
>
> "X exists because there is no proof that X doesn't exist." ]
>
> Show me where I committed that fallacy.
>
> > >
> > > I don't think so.
> >
> > Right, you don't think. Nuff said.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
>
> [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastic ]
>
> [ Sarcasm is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person, situation or thing.
It
> is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as
a
> type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound[1] -- stating the
opposite
> of the intended meaning, e.g. using "that's amazing" to mean "that's
> awful". ]
>
> > >
> > > No, you are understanding your own spurious interpretation, which does
> not
> > > tally with what was written.
> >
> > You gonna put down some real words with some semblance of a real
> > argument to back yourself up, or are you just going to keep on spouting
> > garbage?
>
have
> critized my alleged use of fallacious arguments, while furnishing your
own.
>
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Does what get any more basic?
> >
>
> In this regard, I'd rather attempt, than to actually succeed.
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see it happening right now. The fact that you are not aware of
> it,
> > > is
> > > > > > not my problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good that you see it. Now, show it.
> > > >
> > > > You're showing it to everyone for me. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Sadly, for you, you are wrong. Haha...
> >
> > Uh sure... keep yapping puppy.
>
> You've lost the argument. It just hasn't been pointed out to you, yet.
>
> > > > > I made it up. I thought it fitting.
> > > >
> > > > You've been making up alot.
> > >
> > > It's called 'creativity.'
> >
> > It's called garbage.
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > No it isn't. You really should look it up.
> > > >
> > > > Woops, you're right. I meant to call you're earlier statemnt a
> > > > non-sequitor. That was almost as dumb a mistake as you calling
"straw
> > > > man" earlier.
> > >
> > > Right. You only admitted that it was a dumb mistake, because of a
> mistaken
> > > belief that I had also made a dumb mistake. Unfortunately, you are
> wrong,
> > > twice.
> >
> > Nah, I retracted my statemnt immediately when my error was pointed out.
>
> real interesting to observe, since you are unaware of how flawed your
> position is.
>
> > fact that your lungs are deprived of oxygen reached your brain yet?
>
> I doubt there are many here who think you are smarter than me.
>
> my
> > > eyes.
> >
> > Try sidestepping more. Dance for me pup.
>
> Hahaha... It's like observing someone standing in a pool of piss,
laughing
> at others.
>
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
>
> great steaming gobfuls of nonsense clipped
>
>> Bitch, everyone's brave at a great distance.
>
> Bitch???? You *do* like your eyes the way they are, don't you? ;>)
>
>> I've had lots of people laugh
>> at me.
>
> Tell me something I don't know....
>
>>Though, for some strange reason they couldn't remember what was so
>> funny, up close, when I had lost my sense of humour.
>
> Most guys don't like figting trannys.
>
>>> But you'd be used to that, eh?
>>
>> Yes, I am.
>
> Thought so. Just as an aside....so as to avoid hypocrisy in criticising
> something one is not familiar with, perhaps you'd like to tell me about your
> experience in training Bjj.
>
> I mean, you knock it but you've tried it, haven't you?
> --
> GDS
>
> " Let's roll! "
<crickets chirping>
theoriginaldimi
GreendistantNOSPAMstar schreef:
Wayne's too busy dicktucking.
Gernot Hassenpflug
> "Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@mb3.seikyou.ne.jp> wrote
>> Point taken. No chance without first finding an expert willing to
>> teach. Plus the courage to experiment on one's own body.
>
> Absolutely- they talk about stuff like 'blood clots', 'stroke', toxins
> locked into your organs,.....
Thanks, lots of interesting stuff there to reflect on. I'll be busy
until mid-November so I'll check back then with comments if any ideas
occur to me. Cheers!
Wayne Dobson
You ain't from around here, are you, boy? Hahaha...
Mike
Uhm right ...
Well said... I guess.
-Mike K.
Wayne Dobson
> > Yes. I do understand logic.
>
> Not that you've shown.
I don't show, I demonstrate.
> I for one cannot prove that you don't understand logic, perhaps you are
> merely trying to appear dense.
Your conceit is to assume that logic is confined to the elements that you
understand. You are also trying to prove a negative.
> I can only point out that your arguments are illogical.
Point out which arguments and why. You have yet to do that.
> If that was your intent, then WELL DONE!
>
> Oh and by the way, your little tirade about GDS's *scathing* remarks is
> laughable at best. If this is any indication of how you react to
> situations in real life, then it's no wonder that people laugh at you.
> And it's also no wonder why they stop laughing when you "confront
> them".
>
> Everyone stops laughing when the retarded kid gets all angry. They
> didn't realize he was retarded in the first place and they feel bad.
>
> Now go learn something.
>
> Suck it up. Be a man
I actually find the tedious people on here more offensive than the ones who
are trying to be offensive. In this respect, you may take some small
comfort in succeeding where others have failed.
--
Wayne Dobson
>
> "theoriginaldimi" <theorig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161848958.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Then do it, you little wanker. Step up and let an rma'er close to you
> > stab you in the fucking ass (no need to kill you for your ignorance).
> >
> > C'mon, you know your iron shirt will save you, don't you.
>
> Ha ha, nice one. I suspect Wayne may actually be Bender from
Futurama....so his
> 'shiny metal ass' will be his protection.
Haha... I must admit, that is a mildy amusing image. :-) Hahaha...
Mike
> > merely trying to appear dense.
>
> Your conceit is to assume that logic is confined to the elements that you
> understand. You are also trying to prove a negative.
I never made that assumption, but let's assume that I did. How is that
trying to prove a negative?
Keep talking pup. Everything is recorded on the thread so it can be
reread as needed.
> I actually find the tedious people on here more offensive than the ones who
> are trying to be offensive. In this respect, you may take some small
> comfort in succeeding where others have failed.
Yeah, you already said that.
-Mike K.
Mike
> > merely trying to appear dense.
>
> Your conceit is to assume that logic is confined to the elements that you
> understand. You are also trying to prove a negative.
I never made that assumption, but let's assume that I did. How is that
trying to prove a negative?
Keep talking pup. Everything is recorded on the thread so it can be
reread as needed.
> I actually find the tedious people on here more offensive than the ones who
> are trying to be offensive. In this respect, you may take some small
> comfort in succeeding where others have failed.
Yeah, you already said that.
-Mike K.
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
See this is why I really don't mind you at all Wayne....you can take the odd
crack at yourself in good humour.
It's a healthy trait, and frankly, a pre-requisite to surviving in rma.
Best you :)
Wayne Dobson
Oh shucks. :)
Wayne Dobson
> > > I for one cannot prove that you don't understand logic, perhaps you
are
> > > merely trying to appear dense.
> >
> > Your conceit is to assume that logic is confined to the elements that
you
> > understand. You are also trying to prove a negative.
>
> I never made that assumption, but let's assume that I did. How is that
> trying to prove a negative?
Your arguments are intended to prove a position, based on a negative.
Therefore you are trying to prove a negative.
> Keep talking pup. Everything is recorded on the thread so it can be
> reread as needed.
Good luck to you. I've been on a roll for some time now.
Mike
> Therefore you are trying to prove a negative.
Suuuure ... keep throwing down those one liners, without anything
solid.
I can play too ..
Prove that my proof of my positive is based in a negative. Furthermore,
prove that if this were so, it necessarily means I am trying to prove a
negative.
> Good luck to you. I've been on a roll for some time now.
That's not a roll, it's an epileptic fit.
-Mike K.
wayne_...@hotmail.com
The word you are searching for is "wrong!"
> > > > > Circular reasoning is a fallacy
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so.
> > >
> > > Right, you don't think. Nuff said.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
> >
> > [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastic ]
> >
> > [ Sarcasm is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person, situation or thing. It
> > is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a
> > type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound[1] -- stating the opposite
> > of the intended meaning, e.g. using "that's amazing" to mean "that's
> > awful". ]
>
> And now, you are going to claim "sarcasm". Nice ...
> yap yap yap
You know otherwise?
> > False dichotomy. Your argument is fallacious. Please explain why you have
> > critized my alleged use of fallacious arguments, while furnishing your own.
>
> False dichotomy.
>
> Please show me where my argument is fallacious.
The bit above, that you deleted: "You gonna put down some real words
with some semblance of a real argument to back yourself up, or are you
just going to keep on spouting
garbage?"
That is an example of a false dichotomy. If you want it explained to
you, pay me.
> > > Your obvious attempt at stupidity.
> >
> > In this regard, I'd rather attempt, than to actually succeed.
>
> You've done both.
Nope.
> > It isn't wise to denigrate someone whom you have lost to.
>
> Uhuh.
That's right. Better yet, write it down.
> > Haha... I like that. Hahaha... It's going to make the real hammer blow
> > real interesting to observe, since you are unaware of how flawed your
> > position is.
>
> Please don't hold back for fear of hurting my feelings!
As you wish. You are wrong, wrong, wrong! At this point, even you
recognise it and are trying slink away quietly.
> Interesting to observe ...sad.
Who feels sorry for you? You did ask for it.
> > > Unlike you who continues to drown in your own "creativity". Has the
> > > fact that your lungs are deprived of oxygen reached your brain yet?
> >
> > I doubt there are many here who think you are smarter than me.
>
> You doubt?
Yes.
> What do you want to do, take a poll?
No, it's an educated guess.
> Where did this come from anyway?
Now let me think...
> Do you want to bet whether your daddy is stronger than mine?
Maybe from comments such as that...
> Woo woo!
...and that.
> Hey, point out some of my grammatical errors too!
Nah, you've got enough problems.
Wayne Dobson
>
> "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:kzK%g.80161$3D1....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> > I didn't turn the argument around. I merely asked you to present proof
of
> > your assertion, in the same way that you expected others to present
proof of
> > their's.
>
> This is where you eror lies my friend. You believe there is no difference
between
> the assertion of a positive and proving a negative.
No, I believe that those who assert a negative, then call on others to
present a positive, otherwise the negative stands, should first prove the
negative.
> It's a simple process to refute. Just tell me how I can prove the
negative.
You figure it out. You made the assertion.
> The positive assertion is 'That Iron Shirt can stop a knife'.
Very interesting, but I don't see what that has to do with what we are
discussing.
> I'm not saying that this is impossible, I'm just saying it requires proof.
You may be saying something different, now, but that is not what you said,
earlier.
> Uttering the statement 'Well, prove it can't' can only be validated if the
> positive is refuted.
The statement needs no further validation. It is valid as is.
> The claims of Yellow Bamboo were exactly the same, and were refuted when
the
> assertion was shown by demonstration to be untrue.
No, they aren't the same.
> Hope this helps, and the invoice is in the mail.
Very considerate of you. If the amount meets with my approval, I'll send it
back to you. I hope you spelt my name correctly.
Wayne Dobson
There is none. You didn't provide any.
> If you're claiming it would help, the onus is on you to prove it, not me
to prove
> the negatve.
If you can find where I claimed it would help, show me and ask me to prove
it.
> If you disagree with this last clause, please tell me how I could prove
the
> negative of the assertion. Be precise...tell me EXACTLY what I would have
to do
> to do this.
I'll leave you to figure out why I asked you to prove your assertion.
> Legions of philosophers over millenia have failed in attempts to prove the
> negative, but you seem to think it's possible.
>
> Philosophers worldwide eagerly await your response...please don't
disappoint
> them.
Once you get up to speed, the above will appear redundant.
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
My proof of what? A negative? How many times do we have to dance this dance,
Wayne?
>> If you're claiming it would help, the onus is on you to prove it, not me
> to prove
>> the negatve.
>
> If you can find where I claimed it would help, show me and ask me to prove
> it.
You asked me to prove it doesn't. No can do, I'm afraid. The only proof available
is to prove the positive, or negation of the positive.
>> If you disagree with this last clause, please tell me how I could prove
> the
>> negative of the assertion. Be precise...tell me EXACTLY what I would have
> to do
>> to do this.
>
> I'll leave you to figure out why I asked you to prove your assertion.
Aaaaaaaaggghhhh!!!! Re-read what Mike wrote, he put it pretty well.
>> Legions of philosophers over millenia have failed in attempts to prove the
>> negative, but you seem to think it's possible.
>>
>> Philosophers worldwide eagerly await your response...please don't
> disappoint
>> them.
>
> Once you get up to speed, the above will appear redundant.
There's only so many ways to put this very simple axiom. If you haven't got it by
now, you probably never will.
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
> "GreendistantNOSPAMstar" <Greendis...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:I8U%g.53114$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:kzK%g.80161$3D1....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> > I didn't turn the argument around. I merely asked you to present proof
> of
>> > your assertion, in the same way that you expected others to present
> proof of
>> > their's.
>>
>> This is where you eror lies my friend. You believe there is no difference
> between
>> the assertion of a positive and proving a negative.
>
> No, I believe that those who assert a negative, then call on others to
> present a positive, otherwise the negative stands, should first prove the
> negative.
Then you are asking for proof that can never be delivered.
>> It's a simple process to refute. Just tell me how I can prove the
> negative.
>
> You figure it out. You made the assertion.
>
>> The positive assertion is 'That Iron Shirt can stop a knife'.
>
> Very interesting, but I don't see what that has to do with what we are
> discussing.
>
>> I'm not saying that this is impossible, I'm just saying it requires proof.
>
> You may be saying something different, now, but that is not what you said,
> earlier.
>
>> Uttering the statement 'Well, prove it can't' can only be validated if the
>> positive is refuted.
>
> The statement needs no further validation. It is valid as is.
>
>> The claims of Yellow Bamboo were exactly the same, and were refuted when
> the
>> assertion was shown by demonstration to be untrue.
>
> No, they aren't the same.
They are exactly the same...a spurious claim refuted by demonstration. Fraser and
I showed that the YB claims were false, by demonstration. I call bullshit on
claims that Iron Shirt can stop a knife. Getting all muddled up in "You can't
claim it doesn't work etc" is just word play. If it can, then let an Iron Shirt
practitioner step up and prove it. That positive refutation is the only way to
'prove the negative' ie the claim it doesn't work.
>> Hope this helps, and the invoice is in the mail.
>
> Very considerate of you. If the amount meets with my approval, I'll send it
> back to you. I hope you spelt my name correctly.
A cashier's check, please....your credit rating is slipping pari passu with your
credibility ;>)
Wayne Dobson
>
> >> >> > You did more than that. You made a categorical statement.
> >> >>
> >> >> And which categorical statement is this?
> >> >
> >> > That Iron Shirt training would not help at all, to stop a knife
attack.
> >>
> >> Well, let's look at what was said...
> >>
> >> "Doesn't look much like it'll stop a knife or keep you from being
choked
> > out. Or
> >> does it?"
> >>
> >> "No, it wouldn't help in these circumstances at all, and any claims to
the
> >> contrary would require some supporting proof."
> >>
> >> So, where's the supporting proof?
> >
> > There is none. You didn't provide any.
>
> My proof of what?
Your assertion.
> A negative?
Yes, or state what the assertion is based on.
> How many times do we have to dance this dance, Wayne?
You are still failing to grasp that your position requires something. Good
luck when you find out what it is.
> >> If you're claiming it would help, the onus is on you to prove it, not
me
> > to prove
> >> the negatve.
> >
> > If you can find where I claimed it would help, show me and ask me to
prove
> > it.
>
> You asked me to prove it doesn't. No can do, I'm afraid. The only proof
available
> is to prove the positive, or negation of the positive.
Then by what means can anyone be confident that your assertion is true?
> >> If you disagree with this last clause, please tell me how I could prove
> > the
> >> negative of the assertion. Be precise...tell me EXACTLY what I would
have
> > to do
> >> to do this.
> >
> > I'll leave you to figure out why I asked you to prove your assertion.
>
> Aaaaaaaaggghhhh!!!! Re-read what Mike wrote, he put it pretty well.
Nope. It was a poor effort.
> >> Legions of philosophers over millenia have failed in attempts to prove
the
> >> negative, but you seem to think it's possible.
> >>
> >> Philosophers worldwide eagerly await your response...please don't
> > disappoint
> >> them.
> >
> > Once you get up to speed, the above will appear redundant.
>
> There's only so many ways to put this very simple axiom. If you haven't
got it by > now, you probably never will.
You are still wrong, I'm afraid.
Wayne Dobson
>
> >> This is where you eror lies my friend. You believe there is no
difference
> > between
> >> the assertion of a positive and proving a negative.
> >
> > No, I believe that those who assert a negative, then call on others to
> > present a positive, otherwise the negative stands, should first prove
the
> > negative.
>
> Then you are asking for proof that can never be delivered.
That wouldn't be my fault, now, would it?
> >> It's a simple process to refute. Just tell me how I can prove the
> > negative.
> >
> > You figure it out. You made the assertion.
> >
> >> The positive assertion is 'That Iron Shirt can stop a knife'.
> >
> > Very interesting, but I don't see what that has to do with what we are
> > discussing.
> >
> >> I'm not saying that this is impossible, I'm just saying it requires
proof.
> >
> > You may be saying something different, now, but that is not what you
said,
> > earlier.
> >
> >> Uttering the statement 'Well, prove it can't' can only be validated if
the
> >> positive is refuted.
> >
> > The statement needs no further validation. It is valid as is.
> >
> >> The claims of Yellow Bamboo were exactly the same, and were refuted
when
> > the
> >> assertion was shown by demonstration to be untrue.
> >
> > No, they aren't the same.
>
> They are exactly the same...a spurious claim refuted by demonstration.
What exactly did I claim?
> Fraser and
> I showed that the YB claims were false, by demonstration. I call bullshit
on
> claims that Iron Shirt can stop a knife.
In this respect, your argument is with someone else.
> Getting all muddled up in "You can't
> claim it doesn't work etc" is just word play.
I'm not muddled up.
> If it can, then let an Iron Shirt
> practitioner step up and prove it. That positive refutation is the only
way to
> 'prove the negative' ie the claim it doesn't work.
My argument has never been about that, but about upon what you base your
assertion.
> >> Hope this helps, and the invoice is in the mail.
> >
> > Very considerate of you. If the amount meets with my approval, I'll
send it
> > back to you. I hope you spelt my name correctly.
>
> A cashier's check, please....your credit rating is slipping pari passu
with your
> credibility ;>)
*Chuckle* We'll see.
Mike
You are now bringing up and responding to posts that we have already
moved beyond.
Some valiant effort to keep the troll alive?
Mike K.
P.S. You seem to put alot of stock in your assumed intelligence. What
are your creds?
Wayne Dobson
> Nice Dobbie,
>
> You are now bringing up and responding to posts that we have already
> moved beyond.
My newsreader played up. I responded to anything without a reply.
> Some valiant effort to keep the troll alive?
That argument has been shot down. Try to keep up.
> P.S. You seem to put alot of stock in your assumed intelligence. What
> are your creds?
A demonstrated ability to outwit dumbasses. Do I need to remind you that
you have been proved wrong?
Mike
> you have been proved wrong?
But you haven't.
Why the silence on your creds?
-Mike K.
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
> My argument has never been about that, but about upon what you base your
> assertion.
Let's now straighten this out once and for all, particularly who is making
assertions and the nature of those assertions.
I would ask anyone who is making the positive assertion that Iron Shirt can stop
a knife to prove it, and that would involve providing empirical evidence.
As it stands, without the provision of this empirical evidence, the claim remains
unproved.
My assertion is that, based on all the physical evidence yet provided, the claim
has no basis, just like the YB clowns who claimed no-touch KOs.
If there *is* evidence, let the Iron Shirt practitioners provide it, and a demo
would be a good start.
Until proof is provided, I retain my right to a skepticism that is well-founded
in all recorded history and physical laws. You can call this position an
assertion if you like.
Badger_s
<Greendis...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>I would ask anyone who is making the positive assertion that Iron Shirt can stop
>a knife to prove it, and that would involve providing empirical evidence.
My understanding is that IS can't actually stop knife wounds, but something
less than that, and in addition can't be developed over the entire body.
-B
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
"Badger_s" <Bad...@south.com> wrote in message
news:2lgdk29skuhcjq26v...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:59:52 GMT, "GreendistantNOSPAMstar"
> <Greendis...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>I would ask anyone who is making the positive assertion that Iron Shirt can
>>stop
>>a knife to prove it, and that would involve providing empirical evidence.
>
> My understanding is that IS can't actually stop knife wounds,
Well who'd u thunk it, eh?
but something
> less than that, and in addition can't be developed over the entire body.
"Please Mr Mugger...only stab *here*..."
Badger_s
Again, not knife wounds...
-B
GreendistantNOSPAMstar
Sure. On a more serious note, having read some of the stuff Chas has posted here
about the toxic effects of jows etc used in Iron Shirt, I just can't see it's
worth it.
Poisoning yourself makes you a 'warrior'? Maybe in some screwed-up Indo-macho way
it does, but really, that sort of thing doesn't impress me one whit.
The sprains and pains of what I've done is more than enough punishment. Inducing
long-term, nasty side effects just seems plain dumb to me.
Chas
> Sure. On a more serious note, having read some of the stuff Chas has
> posted here about the toxic effects of jows etc used in Iron Shirt, I just
> can't see it's worth it.
Depends on what 'it' is; what 'it' does for you, and how valuable that is to
you.
The guy that did the hardest conditioning of that type that I've ever known
was Bill Chang. He was the bodyguard and martial art teacher to the Sukarno
Family (the Dictator- his daughter, Megawati Sukarnoputri is the present
leader). His responsibility required him to put his body in front of
whatever was coming at them- hence the need for 'iron body' training. It
wasn't a casual choice done for philosophical reasons.
His training evolved into another approach, but that's another story.
> Poisoning yourself makes you a 'warrior'? Maybe in some screwed-up
> Indo-macho way it does, but really, that sort of thing doesn't impress me
> one whit.
Whether you're impressed or not is irrelevant- that's more about whether
you're sufficiently entertained or not, by all indications.
When you actually approach forming a weapon from your body, you'll burn away
little considerations like that very quickly.
> The sprains and pains of what I've done is more than enough punishment.
> Inducing long-term, nasty side effects just seems plain dumb to me.
You're not a warrior-
I don't mean in the philosophical sense; or what you'd do if pressed- you're
not a warrior. You don't get up with the expectation of warring today.
Martial arts is not about health-
it's about *ill-health*. It's about killing people and breaking their toys.
It's about living through *today*, right now- nothing to do with long life
or growing old healthfully.
--
Chas
Do the Right Thing!
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/
(blackjacks, saps, practice and conditioning tools)