28 Mar 2008 11:02:55
Mike
Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

Has this ever happened to you?

You're walking down the street with your ladyfriend and suddenly out
of the blue you get knocked on your ass by the resident chinaman, who
proceeds to toss you around like a ragdoll with his Qi while your
girlfriend laughs and giggles. All without touching you! How
embarrassing!

Are the sidewalks in your neighborhood cluttered by tibetan monks
sitting in the snow while they Chi-dry wet rag after wet rag, bringing
down the property values?

No longer do you have to suffer due to the craziness of Ki!

For a limited time only, I am offering to you for purchase, the
amazing Ki-shield(TM)

It's fully endorsed by one of the sources in the phraud known as
Renli's (or Oliver Richman) chi phaq...

****
In order to make sure that the Ki-energy, which reached the runner,
was from the mirror, we placed a Ki-shield (Super Tuff-RTM heat
insulator; Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI)
****

For only $50.00 (US) You too can be fully protected!

-Mike K.


28 Mar 2008 16:32:33
Mark Goldberg
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

Mike wrote:
> Has this ever happened to you?

>
> For only $50.00 (US) You too can be fully protected!
>
> -Mike K.

My goodness, we finally develped a defense.
And none too soon....

Mark


28 Mar 2008 23:01:00
Wayne Dobson
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

Mike wrote:
> Has this ever happened to you?
>
> You're walking down the street with your ladyfriend and suddenly out
> of the blue you get knocked on your ass by the resident chinaman, who
> proceeds to toss you around like a ragdoll with his Qi while your
> girlfriend laughs and giggles. All without touching you! How
> embarrassing!
>
> Are the sidewalks in your neighborhood cluttered by tibetan monks
> sitting in the snow while they Chi-dry wet rag after wet rag, bringing
> down the property values?
>
> No longer do you have to suffer due to the craziness of Ki!
>
> For a limited time only, I am offering to you for purchase, the
> amazing Ki-shield(TM)
>
> It's fully endorsed by one of the sources in the phraud known as
> Renli's (or Oliver Richman) chi phaq...
>
> ****
> In order to make sure that the Ki-energy, which reached the runner,
> was from the mirror, we placed a Ki-shield (Super Tuff-RTM heat
> insulator; Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI)
> ****
>
> For only $50.00 (US) You too can be fully protected!

Troll!

--
Wayne Dobson
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"




28 Mar 2008 17:27:47
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 29, 2:02 am, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Has this ever happened to you?
>
> You're walking down the street with your ladyfriend and suddenly out
> of the blue you get knocked on your ass by the resident chinaman, who
> proceeds to toss you around like a ragdoll with his Qi while your
> girlfriend laughs and giggles. All without touching you! How
> embarrassing!
>
> Are the sidewalks in your neighborhood cluttered by tibetan monks
> sitting in the snow while they Chi-dry wet rag after wet rag, bringing
> down the property values?
>
> No longer do you have to suffer due to the craziness of Ki!
>
> For a limited time only, I am offering to you for purchase, the
> amazing Ki-shield(TM)
>
> It's fully endorsed by one of the sources in the phraud known as
> Renli's (or Oliver Richman) chi phaq...
>
> ****
> In order to make sure that the Ki-energy, which reached the runner,
> was from the mirror, we placed a Ki-shield (Super Tuff-RTM heat
> insulator; Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI)
> ****
>
> For only $50.00 (US) You too can be fully protected!
>
> -Mike K.

Oops, looks like someone hasn't read the Chi FAQ.

Emission of Chi/no touch "Chi" is a false teaching, my friend.

Get with the program. You're making yourself the fool here.

-


28 Mar 2008 17:28:43
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 29, 7:01 am, "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > Has this ever happened to you?
>
> > You're walking down the street with your ladyfriend and suddenly out
> > of the blue you get knocked on your ass by the resident chinaman, who
> > proceeds to toss you around like a ragdoll with his Qi while your
> > girlfriend laughs and giggles. All without touching you! How
> > embarrassing!
>
> > Are the sidewalks in your neighborhood cluttered by tibetan monks
> > sitting in the snow while they Chi-dry wet rag after wet rag, bringing
> > down the property values?
>
> > No longer do you have to suffer due to the craziness of Ki!
>
> > For a limited time only, I am offering to you for purchase, the
> > amazing Ki-shield(TM)
>
> > It's fully endorsed by one of the sources in the phraud known as
> > Renli's (or Oliver Richman) chi phaq...
>
> > ****
> > In order to make sure that the Ki-energy, which reached the runner,
> > was from the mirror, we placed a Ki-shield (Super Tuff-RTM heat
> > insulator; Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI)
> > ****
>
> > For only $50.00 (US) You too can be fully protected!
>
> Troll!
>
> --
> Wayne Dobson
> AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"

Of course it's a troll. Mike K. isn't actually interested in
"science", "discussion", or "truth" at all - In the face of the Chi
FAQ, which states emission is basically a delusion, in the face of
being corrected countless times, he posts garbage like this.

he just doesn't get it. He's wrong.

-


28 Mar 2008 19:05:12
Herbert Cannon
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

May the force be with you.




28 Mar 2008 19:47:08
Scary
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 29, 10:01=A0am, "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > Has this ever happened to you?
>
> > You're walking down the street with your ladyfriend and suddenly out
> > of the blue you get knocked on your ass by the resident chinaman, who
> > proceeds to toss you around like a ragdoll with his Qi while your
> > girlfriend laughs and giggles. All without touching you! How
> > embarrassing!
>
> > Are the sidewalks in your neighborhood cluttered by tibetan monks
> > sitting in the snow while they Chi-dry wet rag after wet rag, bringing
> > down the property values?
>
> > No longer do you have to suffer due to the craziness of Ki!
>
> > For a limited time only, I am offering to you for purchase, the
> > amazing Ki-shield(TM)
>
> > It's fully endorsed by one of the sources in the phraud known as
> > Renli's (or Oliver Richman) chi phaq...
>
> > ****
> > In order to make sure that the Ki-energy, which reached the runner,
> > was from the mirror, we placed a Ki-shield (Super Tuff-RTM heat
> > insulator; Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI)
> > ****
>
> > For only $50.00 (US) You too can be fully protected!
>
> Troll!
>
> --
> Wayne Dobson
> AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DYdvYXIwa0Ow&feature=3Drelated

Troll? And what do you call this? I call it snake oil.

Scary


29 Mar 2008 05:05:24
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 28, 8:27 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:
**
>
> > For only $50.00 (US) You too can be fully protected!
>
> > -Mike K.
>
> Oops, looks like someone hasn't read the Chi FAQ.
>
> Emission of Chi/no touch "Chi" is a false teaching, my friend.

That's FROM one of the sources you gave in the latest discussion!

If you want to argue that one of the sources for your phaq is is
deceptive, idiotic and hilariously unscientific, I certainly
understand why you would feel that way.

-Mike K.


29 Mar 2008 05:08:13
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 28, 8:28 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> he just doesn't get it. He's wrong.

One is often wrong when one quotes *sources* of CHI. Much more often
than not, in fact.

That's the thing, this is from the *source* that Renli gave me.

-Mike K.



29 Mar 2008 09:44:32
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 29, 8:08 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 8:28 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > he just doesn't get it. He's wrong.
>
> One is often wrong when one quotes *sources* of CHI. Much more often
> than not, in fact.
>
> That's the thing, this is from the *source* that Renli gave me.
>
> -Mike K.

No, it isn't. You are just being stupid and making up lies - again.
Apparently you still haven't hit rock bottom yet since you are coming
up with even worse lies now than last time.

a) In 1978, Chinese scientists discovered that a Qigong healer's hand
was emitting infrared radiation (35). (35: Kiang T. Chinese 'Nature
Magazine': Chinese style. Nature ( 1978;) 275:: 697.[CrossRef])

b) ...we placed a Ki-shield (Super Tuff-RTM heat insulator; Dow
Chemical Co., Midland, MI) between the emitter and the runner (Fig.
3). This material was used in the previous study, and we demonstrated
that it blocked Ki (34).

What they were doing is blocking the infrared radiation which was
detected by the previous scientist; they were reproducing his
experiment and verifying the results, dumbass.

-


29 Mar 2008 09:45:26
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 29, 8:05 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 8:27 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> > > For only $50.00 (US) You too can be fully protected!
>
> > > -Mike K.
>
> > Oops, looks like someone hasn't read the Chi FAQ.
>
> > Emission of Chi/no touch "Chi" is a false teaching, my friend.
>
> That's FROM one of the sources you gave in the latest discussion!

No, it isn't. You are just being stupid and making up lies - again.
Apparently you still haven't hit rock bottom yet since you are coming
up with even worse lies now than last time.

a) In 1978, Chinese scientists discovered that a Qigong healer's hand
was emitting infrared radiation (35). (35: Kiang T. Chinese 'Nature
Magazine': Chinese style. Nature ( 1978;) 275:: 697.[CrossRef])

b) ...we placed a Ki-shield (Super Tuff-RTM heat insulator; Dow
Chemical Co., Midland, MI) between the emitter and the runner (Fig.
3). This material was used in the previous study, and we demonstrated
that it blocked Ki (34).

What they were doing is blocking the infrared radiation which was
detected by the previous scientist; they were reproducing his
experiment and verifying the results, dumbass.

> If you want to argue that one of the sources for your phaq is is
> deceptive, idiotic and hilariously unscientific, I certainly
> understand why you would feel that way.

You're a moron. You aren't interested in science, discussion, or
truth. You are interested in mocking your own intelligence. It took me
a whole 2 minutes to find those quotes, Mike. Who do you think you're
fooling?

Yourself?

-


29 Mar 2008 12:58:38
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 29, 12:44 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> 3). This material was used in the previous study, and we demonstrated
> that it blocked Ki (34).
>
> What they were doing is blocking the infrared radiation which was
> detected by the previous scientist; they were reproducing his
> experiment and verifying the results, dumbass.

*We demonstrated that it blocked Ki*

-Mike K.


29 Mar 2008 13:00:25
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 29, 12:45 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> You're a moron. You aren't interested in science, discussion, or
> truth. You are interested in mocking your own intelligence. It took me
> a whole 2 minutes to find those quotes, Mike. Who do you think you're
> fooling?

Why'd it take you two whole minutes? It's from the source you threw at
me!

-Mike K.



29 Mar 2008 16:31:07
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 30, 3:58 am, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:44 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 3). This material was used in the previous study, and we demonstrated
> > that it blocked Ki (34).
>
> > What they were doing is blocking the infrared radiation which was
> > detected by the previous scientist; they were reproducing his
> > experiment and verifying the results, dumbass.
>
> *We demonstrated that it blocked Ki*
>
> -Mike K.

Are you telling me that they are perfectly correct in their statement,
or perfectly incorrect? According to (35) it was discovered,
scientifically, that infrared radiation could be emitted by one such
"ki" practitioner. They simply introduced a heat shield to try and
block this form of radiation, which seemed to work. They even said it
was a heat shield. Designed to block IR. They called it Ki, but if the
chain of events which led them to their conclusion is not obvious to
you, how come *you* get to be the scientist? :P

Seriously Mike, I thought you were supposed to be a really smart guy?

-


29 Mar 2008 16:31:57
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 30, 4:00 am, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:45 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You're a moron. You aren't interested in science, discussion, or
> > truth. You are interested in mocking your own intelligence. It took me
> > a whole 2 minutes to find those quotes, Mike. Who do you think you're
> > fooling?
>
> Why'd it take you two whole minutes? It's from the source you threw at
> me!
>
> -Mike K.

Because you didn't tell me where, and I had to open a window, find it,
and read it.

Why haven't you realized you're wrong yet?

-


29 Mar 2008 23:26:24
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 29, 7:31 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Mar 30, 4:00 am, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Why'd it take you two whole minutes? It's from the source you threw at
> > me!
>
> > -Mike K.
>
> Because you didn't tell me where, and I had to open a window, find it,
> and read it.

I didn't tell you where? tell yourself! You just had to click on the
link you pasted!

-Mike K.


29 Mar 2008 23:36:14
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 29, 7:31 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Are you telling me that they are perfectly correct in their statement,
> or perfectly incorrect? According to (35) it was discovered,
> scientifically, that infrared radiation could be emitted by one such
> "ki" practitioner. They simply introduced a heat shield to try and
> block this form of radiation, which seemed to work. They even said it
> was a heat shield. Designed to block IR. They called it Ki, but if the
> chain of events which led them to their conclusion is not obvious to
> you, how come *you* get to be the scientist? :P

Are you seriously arguing to ME, that the idiots who came up with this
BS are unscientific, unoriginal, and full of it?

No Duh! Really?

You might want to ask yourself why you threw down a link, that led to
that crap.
Oh wait, it's all crap.

-Mike K.


30 Mar 2008 02:35:45
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 30, 2:26 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:31 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:00 am, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Why'd it take you two whole minutes? It's from the source you threw at
> > > me!
>
> > > -Mike K.
>
> > Because you didn't tell me where, and I had to open a window, find it,
> > and read it.
>
> I didn't tell you where? tell yourself! You just had to click on the
> link you pasted!
>
> -Mike K.

No, you tell me.

P.S. how do you keep an idiot in suspense?

-


30 Mar 2008 02:37:00
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 30, 2:36 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:31 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you telling me that they are perfectly correct in their statement,
> > or perfectly incorrect? According to (35) it was discovered,
> > scientifically, that infrared radiation could be emitted by one such
> > "ki" practitioner. They simply introduced a heat shield to try and
> > block this form of radiation, which seemed to work. They even said it
> > was a heat shield. Designed to block IR. They called it Ki, but if the
> > chain of events which led them to their conclusion is not obvious to
> > you, how come *you* get to be the scientist? :P
>
> Are you seriously arguing to ME, that the idiots who came up with this
> BS are unscientific, unoriginal, and full of it?
>
> No Duh! Really?
>
> You might want to ask yourself why you threw down a link, that led to
> that crap.
> Oh wait, it's all crap.
>
> -Mike K.

Been that deep in shit all your life, that everything looks like crap?
Wish I could share your point of view, but I just don't care about
people who aren't respectful of their martial arts elders.

-


30 Mar 2008 06:58:22
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 30, 5:37 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> > You might want to ask yourself why you threw down a link, that led to
> > that crap.
> > Oh wait, it's all crap.
>
> > -Mike K.
>
> Been that deep in shit all your life, that everything looks like crap?
> Wish I could share your point of view, but I just don't care about
> people who aren't respectful of their martial arts elders.

You're just upset because a link that YOU threw down to support your
theory of Ki, not only contradicts it, but does so in such a silly
way.

-Mike K.



30 Mar 2008 07:04:16
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

Mike wrote:
> You're just upset

I assure you I'm not upset.

-


31 Mar 2008 13:04:45
Shuurai
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!


> > Why'd it take you two whole minutes? It's from the source you threw at
> > me!
>
> > -Mike K.
>
> Because you didn't tell me where, and I had to open a window, find it,
> and read it.

You needed him to tell you what the source you cited said???

Gawd, at least Hal actually takes the time to misinterpret his
sources.

> Why haven't you realized you're wrong yet?

Might have something to do with the fact that you need him to tell you
what YOUR sources actually say on the matter.

Honestly Ollie, are you here as part of some kind of usenet version of
candid camera? Surely you cannot be this inept at simple discussion.
It's like you're actually TRYING to be as wrong as humanly possible.


31 Mar 2008 15:56:19
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 1, 4:04 am, Shuurai <Shuura...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> > > Why'd it take you two whole minutes? It's from the source you threw at
> > > me!
>
> > > -Mike K.
>
> > Because you didn't tell me where, and I had to open a window, find it,
> > and read it.
>
> You needed him to tell you what the source you cited said???

Go read the OP in this thread and from that tell me which article he
quoted.

In fact he didn't QUOTE anything. He picked a word and used it
improperly. He mis defined it.

Any intellectually honest person would realize this immediately, that
Mike was spouting bullshit; but you can't admit you were wrong, so you
attach to any old argument against me even the flimsy ones. Then when
you're so easily proven wrong you just claim it's okay because I'm
wrong anyways - the ironic thing is that you are the one who is
actually without any proof, and with a great mountain of evidence
against you.

-


01 Apr 2008 04:43:48
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Mar 31, 6:56=A0pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> > You needed him to tell you what the source you cited said???
>
> Go read the OP in this thread and from that tell me which article he
> quoted.

I clicked on your link. And read what was there.

>
> In fact he didn't QUOTE anything. He picked a word and used it
> improperly. He mis defined it.

I pasted what was written in the link that you threw down.

> Any intellectually honest person would realize this immediately, that
> Mike was spouting bullshit; but you can't admit you were wrong,

An honest person would just say "Ehh, that link that I threw down, it
led to a bunch of BS, my mistake.", but you are a phraud.

-Mike K.


01 Apr 2008 06:02:14
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 1, 7:43 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Mar 31, 6:56 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You needed him to tell you what the source you cited said???
>
> > Go read the OP in this thread and from that tell me which article he
> > quoted.
>
> I clicked on your link. And read what was there.
>
>
>
> > In fact he didn't QUOTE anything. He picked a word and used it
> > improperly. He mis defined it.
>
> I pasted what was written in the link that you threw down.

Yes, you pasted "one word" and then you used it in a context it wasn't
used in originally. In short, you lied. And then you lied again above
when you implied it was from the link I "threw down".

> > Any intellectually honest person would realize this immediately, that
> > Mike was spouting bullshit; but you can't admit you were wrong,

-


01 Apr 2008 06:37:43
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 1, 9:02=A0am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Yes, you pasted "one word" and then you used it in a context it wasn't
> used in originally. In short, you lied. And then you lied again above
> when you implied it was from the link I "threw down".

Idiot. I pasted the entire phrase. Go to the link you threw down, and
read where it leads.

-Mike K.




01 Apr 2008 06:59:16
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 1, 9:37 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 9:02 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, you pasted "one word" and then you used it in a context it wasn't
> > used in originally. In short, you lied. And then you lied again above
> > when you implied it was from the link I "threw down".
>
> Idiot. I pasted the entire phrase. Go to the link you threw down, and
> read where it leads.

You lied.

See "To clear up a lie" where you post the entire article and the
phrase ("the entire phrase") appears nowhere in the article.

-


01 Apr 2008 07:06:57
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 1, 9:59=A0am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 9:37 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 1, 9:02 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, you pasted "one word" and then you used it in a context it wasn't=

> > > used in originally. In short, you lied. And then you lied again above
> > > when you implied it was from the link I "threw down".
>
> > Idiot. I pasted the entire phrase. Go to the link you threw down, and
> > read where it leads.
>
> You lied.
>
> See "To clear up a lie" where you post the entire article and the
> phrase ("the entire phrase") appears nowhere in the article.

Puppy, you'er quibbling on a grand scale here, just to make a fool of
yourself?

-Mike K.


01 Apr 2008 07:46:27
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 1, 10:06 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 9:59 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 1, 9:37 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 1, 9:02 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, you pasted "one word" and then you used it in a context it wasn't
> > > > used in originally. In short, you lied. And then you lied again above
> > > > when you implied it was from the link I "threw down".
>
> > > Idiot. I pasted the entire phrase. Go to the link you threw down, and
> > > read where it leads.
>
> > You lied.
>
> > See "To clear up a lie" where you post the entire article and the
> > phrase ("the entire phrase") appears nowhere in the article.
>
> Puppy, you'er quibbling on a grand scale here, just to make a fool of
> yourself?

You've been told countless times why you are wrong. Why should anyone
help you now?

-


01 Apr 2008 08:12:16
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 1, 10:46=A0am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> > Puppy, you'er quibbling on a grand scale here, just to make a fool of
> > yourself?
>
> You've been told countless times why you are wrong. Why should anyone
> help you now?

I don't need anyone's help to illustrate that you are a phraud. You do
that all on your own.

-Mike K.


01 Apr 2008 08:25:50
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 1, 11:12 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 10:46 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Puppy, you'er quibbling on a grand scale here, just to make a fool of
> > > yourself?
>
> > You've been told countless times why you are wrong. Why should anyone
> > help you now?
>
> I don't need anyone's help to illustrate that you are a phraud. You do
> that all on your own.

And this has what to do with the subject?

-


01 Apr 2008 20:45:05
yazig
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

Renli,

You claim that Mike is a liar and you state that he only quoted one
word from the article you provided, when what he quotes is "we
demonstrated that it blocked Ki."

That is more than one word.

Then he refutes it and says he quoted the entire phrase...and you call
him a liar...for some unapparent reason. Do you know what a phrase is?

Here is the entire sentence

"This material was used in the previous study, and we demonstrated
that it blocked Ki (34)."









01 Apr 2008 20:47:11
yazig
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

P.S.

My hand emits infrared radiation all the time.


01 Apr 2008 21:10:15
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 11:45 am, yazig <gkorne...@msn.com > wrote:
> Renli,
>
> You claim that Mike is a liar and you state that he only quoted one
> word from the article you provided, when what he quotes is "we
> demonstrated that it blocked Ki."
>
> That is more than one word.
>
> Then he refutes it and says he quoted the entire phrase...and you call
> him a liar...for some unapparent reason. Do you know what a phrase is?
>
> Here is the entire sentence
>
> "This material was used in the previous study, and we demonstrated
> that it blocked Ki (34)."

Nowhere in the OP to this thread does that phrase appear; yet when I
informed mike "Emission of Chi/no touch "Chi" is a false teaching, my
friend." he lied and said "That's FROM one of the sources you gave in
the latest discussion!" (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-
arts/msg/10ab36a25dc28682)

The point is it wasn't. The entire point is that I was correct; that
section of the article concludes "Then, based upon those results, we
built our hypothesis (34). This was
only possible when both the Ki-emitter and the Ki-receiver practiced
NBM."

Don't you see? Mike took something out of context twice in a row. He
took "Ki-shield", which is explained as a heat shield/infrared shield
as used in a previous experiment. Then they determined this was only
possible if both people practiced the same stuff. Mike is totally
whacked out. He's lost his sense of direction. he's lashing out at
anything and everything. Just look at the OP in this thread, what a
gigantic waste of time Mike has become. Strawman after strawman,
that's mike K.

Then he presented another out of context quote as if it was the
conclusion and it wasn't. The actual conclusion of this paper in that
section was that it was not a viable martial arts technique. THAT *IS*
the point, dude. Emission of Chi is a false teaching. Now think about
this - I am telling you this - so why do you suppose Mike K and
Greendistantstar etc. are still trying to mock me on this?

Because they don't even understand that NO ONE believes emission of
chi - not even me. Yes, they really think I believe in Chi bolts, even
though they've been told 10,000 times it isn't true. They just argue
because they are stupid people, really, with nothing better to do.

So then if Chi bolts aren't real....... what IS chi, anyways?

-


01 Apr 2008 21:11:41
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 11:47 am, yazig <gkorne...@msn.com > wrote:
> P.S.
>
> My hand emits infrared radiation all the time.

Exactly. So if Chi *ISN'T* infra-red radiation... brings up an
interesting question doesn't it.. If Chi *ISN'T* something which is
ever intended to be emitted from the body... just what the heck IS chi
anyways?

Sure if you say "chi isn't real" and you think it's something you emit
you are right. Because it isn't something you emit. But then you're
wrong on the definition of Chi in the first place, so your entire
argument is irrelevant in the first place...

-


02 Apr 2008 07:08:45
Greendistantstar
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!


"Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:bb9208a3-2a80-447f-8841-5182e2bc5c04@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 2, 11:45 am, yazig <gkorne...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Renli,
>>
>> You claim that Mike is a liar and you state that he only quoted one
>> word from the article you provided, when what he quotes is "we
>> demonstrated that it blocked Ki."
>>
>> That is more than one word.
>>
>> Then he refutes it and says he quoted the entire phrase...and you call
>> him a liar...for some unapparent reason. Do you know what a phrase is?
>>
>> Here is the entire sentence
>>
>> "This material was used in the previous study, and we demonstrated
>> that it blocked Ki (34)."
>
> Nowhere in the OP to this thread does that phrase appear; yet when I
> informed mike "Emission of Chi/no touch "Chi" is a false teaching, my
> friend." he lied and said "That's FROM one of the sources you gave in
> the latest discussion!" (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-
> arts/msg/10ab36a25dc28682)
>
> The point is it wasn't. The entire point is that I was correct; that
> section of the article concludes "Then, based upon those results, we
> built our hypothesis (34). This was
> only possible when both the Ki-emitter and the Ki-receiver practiced
> NBM."
>
> Don't you see? Mike took something out of context twice in a row. He
> took "Ki-shield", which is explained as a heat shield/infrared shield
> as used in a previous experiment. Then they determined this was only
> possible if both people practiced the same stuff. Mike is totally
> whacked out. He's lost his sense of direction. he's lashing out at
> anything and everything. Just look at the OP in this thread, what a
> gigantic waste of time Mike has become. Strawman after strawman,
> that's mike K.
>
> Then he presented another out of context quote as if it was the
> conclusion and it wasn't. The actual conclusion of this paper in that
> section was that it was not a viable martial arts technique. THAT *IS*
> the point, dude. Emission of Chi is a false teaching. Now think about
> this - I am telling you this - so why do you suppose Mike K and
> Greendistantstar etc. are still trying to mock me on this?
>
> Because they don't even understand that NO ONE believes emission of
> chi - not even me. Yes, they really think I believe in Chi bolts, even
> though they've been told 10,000 times it isn't true. They just argue
> because they are stupid people, really, with nothing better to do.
>
> So then if Chi bolts aren't real....... what IS chi, anyways?

Are you asking because you do not know, or is the question rhetorical?

How about YOU post YOUR definition, right here, right now.

Then, in support of this definition, provide some hard evidence of its existence.

Such evidence is not and cannot be what some old Chinese bloke heard some other,
older, Chinese bloke say in the 16th century.

Evidence of Chi is NOT some physical exertion that is 'explained' by a
practitioner as 'summoning his Chi' as that gets us nowhere...he could just as
easily say it was the invisible pink unicorns that were doing whatever 'it' is.

This is not a big test, is it? Are you up to it, Ollie, or will you continue to
obsfucate and utter inanities such as.."We cannot answer because we don't know
what type of Chi we are talking about here..." which is about as lame and
pathetic as one can get.

I predict a fusillage of gibberish, but hey, prove me wrong, Ollie.
--
GDS

"Let's roll!"








02 Apr 2008 00:48:41
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 3:08 pm, "Greendistantstar"
<pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au > wrote:

> How about YOU post YOUR definition, right here, right now.

I've already posted a sufficient definition for you to know that what
you think it is has no correspondence with what I believe. That should
clue you in to a few things, but namely that you should stop trying to
tell me that Chi isn't real, or has no use, because we aren't even
talking about the same thing.

> Then, in support of this definition, provide some hard evidence of its existence.

Requests like this just highlight your misunderstanding. It makes the
assumption that Chi is something which would require a proof to be
accepted in the first place. If I told you that chi referred to the
human body or to kinetic energy, could you say then that chi didn't
exist, or required proof? You could, but it would be a rather
pointless exercise trying to prove that humans exist, or that kinetic
energy existed. So, it is probably wrong to even assume that this is a
kind of statement which could be made about Chi, regardless of if it
was true or not.

I think what you need to do is sort out a question like "Can any kind
of chi be used to do x?" or "How can Chi help me do x?" or "Why is Chi
useful to do X?" instead of "does chi exist" or "what scientific
evidence exists for chi" since regardless of if chi existed or not, if
you have no use for it, it's a moot point.

> Such evidence is not and cannot be what some old Chinese bloke heard some other,
> older, Chinese bloke say in the 16th century.

Unless of course that chinese bloke said, for instance, just as an
example, that chi was kinetic energy, or transferrence of force (with
the goal of conservation of energy). Then actually it would be a very
strong statement to make, especially if that bloke went on to design a
martial art around the idea.

Notice that nowhere is anyone making a claim that some chinese bloke
said "chi is real" 600 years ago, and therefore chi is real. That's an
assumption you're making, that I/we are doing that, but no one is
doing that at all.

> Evidence of Chi is NOT some physical exertion that is 'explained' by a
> practitioner as 'summoning his Chi' as that gets us nowhere...he could just as
> easily say it was the invisible pink unicorns that were doing whatever 'it' is.

Exactly. But again no one is saying that or trying to use such an
appeal to authority of that kind.

> This is not a big test, is it? Are you up to it, Ollie, or will you continue to
> obsfucate and utter inanities such as.."We cannot answer because we don't know
> what type of Chi we are talking about here..." which is about as lame and
> pathetic as one can get.

Unfortunately it's true. But sure, whatever Chi is blood, peter. It's
just your blood. Yes, it's true. Xue Chi (blood) is produced from Food
Chi. Food chi is simply the energy and nutritional value we get from
food. This is directly from the Huangdi Neijing, the book they used to
construct Tai Chi and it's the foundation of traditional chinese
medicine. And that's a fact.

Pretty boring huh? You gonna tell me blood doesn't exist now? That
food has no use? Do you see my point?

> I predict a fusillage of gibberish, but hey, prove me wrong, Ollie.

It's not gibberish - it's just not what you expected. In short, chi
bolts aren't real so don't expect any attempt to prove otherwise. You
won't get it.

-


02 Apr 2008 09:04:59
Greendistantstar
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!


"Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:f8b46cab-c7bc-444c-a00f-74404f1be384@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 2, 3:08 pm, "Greendistantstar"
> <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>> How about YOU post YOUR definition, right here, right now.
>
> I've already posted a sufficient definition for you to know that what
> you think it is has no correspondence with what I believe. That should
> clue you in to a few things, but namely that you should stop trying to
> tell me that Chi isn't real, or has no use, because we aren't even
> talking about the same thing.

No definition, eh? In the minute or so you posted your 'reply' you could have
done so, but you didn't/

>> Then, in support of this definition, provide some hard evidence of its
>> existence.
>
> Requests like this just highlight your misunderstanding. It makes the
> assumption that Chi is something which would require a proof to be
> accepted in the first place. If I told you that chi referred to the
> human body or to kinetic energy, could you say then that chi didn't
> exist, or required proof? You could, but it would be a rather
> pointless exercise trying to prove that humans exist, or that kinetic
> energy existed. So, it is probably wrong to even assume that this is a
> kind of statement which could be made about Chi, regardless of if it
> was true or not.

Uh, so that would be NO evidence. Thank you.

> I think what you need to do is sort out a question like "Can any kind
> of chi be used to do x?" or "How can Chi help me do x?" or "Why is Chi
> useful to do X?" instead of "does chi exist" or "what scientific
> evidence exists for chi" since regardless of if chi existed or not, if
> you have no use for it, it's a moot point.

Not at all. My invisible pink unicorns can do all your Chi can do.

>> Such evidence is not and cannot be what some old Chinese bloke heard some
>> other,
>> older, Chinese bloke say in the 16th century.
>
> Unless of course that chinese bloke said, for instance, just as an
> example, that chi was kinetic energy, or transferrence of force (with
> the goal of conservation of energy). Then actually it would be a very
> strong statement to make, especially if that bloke went on to design a
> martial art around the idea.

I don't want someone else's opinion, I want yours.

> Notice that nowhere is anyone making a claim that some chinese bloke
> said "chi is real" 600 years ago, and therefore chi is real. That's an
> assumption you're making, that I/we are doing that, but no one is
> doing that at all.

Then where's YOUR definition and evidence?

>> Evidence of Chi is NOT some physical exertion that is 'explained' by a
>> practitioner as 'summoning his Chi' as that gets us nowhere...he could just as
>> easily say it was the invisible pink unicorns that were doing whatever 'it'
>> is.
>
> Exactly. But again no one is saying that or trying to use such an
> appeal to authority of that kind.

Read above.

>> This is not a big test, is it? Are you up to it, Ollie, or will you continue
>> to
>> obsfucate and utter inanities such as.."We cannot answer because we don't know
>> what type of Chi we are talking about here..." which is about as lame and
>> pathetic as one can get.
>
> Unfortunately it's true. But sure, whatever Chi is blood, peter. It's
> just your blood. Yes, it's true. Xue Chi (blood) is produced from Food
> Chi. Food chi is simply the energy

So Chi is now energy from food? We already understand how that works, and guess
what....no Chi needed.

> and nutritional value we get from
> food. This is directly from the Huangdi Neijing, the book they used to
> construct Tai Chi and it's the foundation of traditional chinese
> medicine. And that's a fact.

That some old Chinese bloke said it is perhaps a fact. Whether *what he said* is
a fact is quite another thing. You don't seem to get this distinction, do you?

> Pretty boring huh? You gonna tell me blood doesn't exist now? That
> food has no use? Do you see my point?

Yes, your point is that Chi is a meaningless term.

>> I predict a fusillage of gibberish, but hey, prove me wrong, Ollie.
>
> It's not gibberish - it's just not what you expected. In short, chi
> bolts aren't real so don't expect any attempt to prove otherwise. You
> won't get it.

Why can't you answer a few simple questions?
--
GDS

"Let's roll!"





02 Apr 2008 02:35:11
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 5:04 pm, "Greendistantstar"
<pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>
> >> How about YOU post YOUR definition, right here, right now.
>
> > I've already posted a sufficient definition for you to know that what
> > you think it is has no correspondence with what I believe. That should
> > clue you in to a few things, but namely that you should stop trying to
> > tell me that Chi isn't real, or has no use, because we aren't even
> > talking about the same thing.
>
> No definition, eh?

Did you read the post before you hit reply - or are you an idiot?

> In the minute or so you posted your 'reply' you could have
> done so, but you didn't/

Actually I did - but you hit reply without reading the post, like an
idiot.

> > So, it is probably wrong to even assume that this is a
> > kind of statement which could be made about Chi, regardless of if it
> > was true or not.
>
> Uh, so that would be NO evidence. Thank you.

Huh? You want evidence that humans exist? You're that stupid? Or you
didn't understand what I wrote?

> I don't want someone else's opinion, I want yours.

Yet you don't read it when I give it to you...

> > Notice that nowhere is anyone making a claim that some chinese bloke
> > said "chi is real" 600 years ago, and therefore chi is real. That's an
> > assumption you're making, that I/we are doing that, but no one is
> > doing that at all.
>
> Then where's YOUR definition and evidence?

In the post you responded to, idiot.

> >> Evidence of Chi is NOT some physical exertion that is 'explained' by a
> >> practitioner as 'summoning his Chi' as that gets us nowhere...he could just as
> >> easily say it was the invisible pink unicorns that were doing whatever 'it'
> >> is.
>
> > Exactly. But again no one is saying that or trying to use such an
> > appeal to authority of that kind.
>
> Read above.

Read below - LOL

> >> This is not a big test, is it? Are you up to it, Ollie, or will you continue
> >> to
> >> obsfucate and utter inanities such as.."We cannot answer because we don't know
> >> what type of Chi we are talking about here..." which is about as lame and
> >> pathetic as one can get.
>
> > Unfortunately it's true. But sure, whatever Chi is blood, peter. It's
> > just your blood. Yes, it's true. Xue Chi (blood) is produced from Food
> > Chi. Food chi is simply the energy
>
> So Chi is now energy from food? We already understand how that works, and guess
> what....no Chi needed.

Yes, we KNOW you don't need to speak Chinese to be understood, Peter.
That doesn't mean you can't. Unless you're some sort of racist.

Or an idiot.

> > Pretty boring huh? You gonna tell me blood doesn't exist now? That
> > food has no use? Do you see my point?
>
> Yes, your point is that Chi is a meaningless term.

Like, for instance, food. Or blood.

> >> I predict a fusillage of gibberish, but hey, prove me wrong, Ollie.
>
> > It's not gibberish - it's just not what you expected. In short, chi
> > bolts aren't real so don't expect any attempt to prove otherwise. You
> > won't get it.
>
> Why can't you answer a few simple questions?

I did. You just didn't understand the answer.

-


02 Apr 2008 11:06:52
Wayne Dobson
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

Greendistantstar wrote:
> "Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bb9208a3-2a80-447f-8841-5182e2bc5c04@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 2, 11:45 am, yazig <gkorne...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> Renli,
>>>
>>> You claim that Mike is a liar and you state that he only quoted one
>>> word from the article you provided, when what he quotes is "we
>>> demonstrated that it blocked Ki."
>>>
>>> That is more than one word.
>>>
>>> Then he refutes it and says he quoted the entire phrase...and you
>>> call him a liar...for some unapparent reason. Do you know what a
>>> phrase is? Here is the entire sentence
>>>
>>> "This material was used in the previous study, and we demonstrated
>>> that it blocked Ki (34)."
>>
>> Nowhere in the OP to this thread does that phrase appear; yet when I
>> informed mike "Emission of Chi/no touch "Chi" is a false teaching, my
>> friend." he lied and said "That's FROM one of the sources you gave in
>> the latest discussion!" (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-
>> arts/msg/10ab36a25dc28682)
>>
>> The point is it wasn't. The entire point is that I was correct; that
>> section of the article concludes "Then, based upon those results, we
>> built our hypothesis (34). This was
>> only possible when both the Ki-emitter and the Ki-receiver practiced
>> NBM."
>>
>> Don't you see? Mike took something out of context twice in a row. He
>> took "Ki-shield", which is explained as a heat shield/infrared shield
>> as used in a previous experiment. Then they determined this was only
>> possible if both people practiced the same stuff. Mike is totally
>> whacked out. He's lost his sense of direction. he's lashing out at
>> anything and everything. Just look at the OP in this thread, what a
>> gigantic waste of time Mike has become. Strawman after strawman,
>> that's mike K.
>>
>> Then he presented another out of context quote as if it was the
>> conclusion and it wasn't. The actual conclusion of this paper in that
>> section was that it was not a viable martial arts technique. THAT
>> *IS* the point, dude. Emission of Chi is a false teaching. Now think
>> about this - I am telling you this - so why do you suppose Mike K and
>> Greendistantstar etc. are still trying to mock me on this?
>>
>> Because they don't even understand that NO ONE believes emission of
>> chi - not even me. Yes, they really think I believe in Chi bolts,
>> even though they've been told 10,000 times it isn't true. They just
>> argue because they are stupid people, really, with nothing better to
>> do. So then if Chi bolts aren't real....... what IS chi, anyways?
>
> Are you asking because you do not know, or is the question rhetorical?
>
> How about YOU post YOUR definition, right here, right now.

No, you need to post your understanding of what his definition of 'chi' is;
as you claimed that there is no such thing as 'chi', as he defines it.
After that, take your pills.

--
Wayne Dobson
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"




02 Apr 2008 05:21:36
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 12:10=A0am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > Here is the entire sentence
>
> > "This material was used in the previous study, and we demonstrated
> > that it blocked Ki (34)."
>
> Nowhere in the OP to this thread does that phrase appear;

I never claimed the phrase appeared in *your* original post. I claim
that it appears in the link that you pasted.

You are counting on the fact that the article is longwinded, and dull.
Hoping that noone will read it and see that it says what I say it
does.

> yet when I
> informed mike "Emission of Chi/no touch "Chi" is a false teaching, my

The link you pasted clearly disagrees with you.

> Don't you see? Mike took something out of context twice in a row. He
> took "Ki-shield", which is explained as a heat shield/infrared shield

No, it is explained as a material which is normally used as a heat
shield. The authors clearly state that they used it to block Ki.

Anyone can simply go and read the article.

> anything and everything. Just look at the OP in this thread, what a
> gigantic waste of time Mike has become.

It was a joke. Pointing out what your source said.

> this - I am telling you this - so why do you suppose Mike K and
> Greendistantstar etc. are still trying to mock me on this?

Because you deserve to be mocked.

> Because they don't even understand that NO ONE believes emission of
> chi - not even me. Yes, they really think I believe in Chi bolts,

No one does? Are you really going to say that no one believes in Chi
emission?

Show me where *I* claimed *you* believed in Chi bolts.

You are a phraud.

-Mike K.




02 Apr 2008 06:12:31
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 6:06 pm, "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com > wrote:
> Greendistantstar wrote:
> > "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:bb9208a3-2a80-447f-8841-5182e2bc5c04@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 2, 11:45 am, yazig <gkorne...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>> Renli,
>
> >>> You claim that Mike is a liar and you state that he only quoted one
> >>> word from the article you provided, when what he quotes is "we
> >>> demonstrated that it blocked Ki."
>
> >>> That is more than one word.
>
> >>> Then he refutes it and says he quoted the entire phrase...and you
> >>> call him a liar...for some unapparent reason. Do you know what a
> >>> phrase is? Here is the entire sentence
>
> >>> "This material was used in the previous study, and we demonstrated
> >>> that it blocked Ki (34)."
>
> >> Nowhere in the OP to this thread does that phrase appear; yet when I
> >> informed mike "Emission of Chi/no touch "Chi" is a false teaching, my
> >> friend." he lied and said "That's FROM one of the sources you gave in
> >> the latest discussion!" (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-
> >> arts/msg/10ab36a25dc28682)
>
> >> The point is it wasn't. The entire point is that I was correct; that
> >> section of the article concludes "Then, based upon those results, we
> >> built our hypothesis (34). This was
> >> only possible when both the Ki-emitter and the Ki-receiver practiced
> >> NBM."
>
> >> Don't you see? Mike took something out of context twice in a row. He
> >> took "Ki-shield", which is explained as a heat shield/infrared shield
> >> as used in a previous experiment. Then they determined this was only
> >> possible if both people practiced the same stuff. Mike is totally
> >> whacked out. He's lost his sense of direction. he's lashing out at
> >> anything and everything. Just look at the OP in this thread, what a
> >> gigantic waste of time Mike has become. Strawman after strawman,
> >> that's mike K.
>
> >> Then he presented another out of context quote as if it was the
> >> conclusion and it wasn't. The actual conclusion of this paper in that
> >> section was that it was not a viable martial arts technique. THAT
> >> *IS* the point, dude. Emission of Chi is a false teaching. Now think
> >> about this - I am telling you this - so why do you suppose Mike K and
> >> Greendistantstar etc. are still trying to mock me on this?
>
> >> Because they don't even understand that NO ONE believes emission of
> >> chi - not even me. Yes, they really think I believe in Chi bolts,
> >> even though they've been told 10,000 times it isn't true. They just
> >> argue because they are stupid people, really, with nothing better to
> >> do. So then if Chi bolts aren't real....... what IS chi, anyways?
>
> > Are you asking because you do not know, or is the question rhetorical?
>
> > How about YOU post YOUR definition, right here, right now.
>
> No, you need to post your understanding of what his definition of 'chi' is;
> as you claimed that there is no such thing as 'chi', as he defines it.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I didn't ask as I know
he has no definition and isn't really interested in one anyways :/

-


02 Apr 2008 06:18:45
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 8:21 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 12:10 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Here is the entire sentence
>
> > > "This material was used in the previous study, and we demonstrated
> > > that it blocked Ki (34)."
>
> > Nowhere in the OP to this thread does that phrase appear;
>
> I never claimed the phrase appeared in *your* original post.

I didn't say you claimed that.

> Anyone can simply go and read the article.

Correct.

> It was a joke. Pointing out what your source said.

My source did not say what you claimed it did; and yes, what you said
was a joke.

> > this - I am telling you this - so why do you suppose Mike K and
> > Greendistantstar etc. are still trying to mock me on this?
>
> Because you deserve to be mocked.

So you basically admit to lying and mocking in order to support your
position on this issue. Interesting. Can't you be more mature and
discuss things rationally?

> > Because they don't even understand that NO ONE believes emission of
> > chi - not even me. Yes, they really think I believe in Chi bolts,
>
> No one does? Are you really going to say that no one believes in Chi
> emission?

Do you believe in it? No? Then why do you keep lying and telling
people that's what I believe?

Oh right - because flying in the face of every rational thing I've
said, I somehow deserve to be mocked. Wow, you're really bigoted
aren't you? Can't accept that someone believes something different
than yourself, ehh? You must be a social reject or something. Learn to
get along with people, mike.

> Show me where *I* claimed *you* believed in Chi bolts.

You insinuate as much when you mock me by talking about a Ki-shield.
You're apparently too stupid to realise the entire purpose of the
article is to demonstrate emitted Ki isn't viable. Heck it even
appears in the section intended to refute emitted chi and chi bolts in
the chi FAQ. No one can be this stupid by accident, yet you appear to
be.

> You are a phraud.

You're a liar, and a complete moron. It isn't like you haven't been
told, and yet, you persist in your delusion of what other people think
and believe. You are also of poor morals because you intentionally
mock people and treat people with low respect whom you disagree with.
You are a poor example of a scientist, and of a human being.

-


02 Apr 2008 07:08:25
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 9:18=A0am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> > Anyone can simply go and read the article.
>
> Correct.

Indeed. The article does appear to be scientific. It might have
shortcomings, but at least they proced in a straightforward honest
manner.

> > > this - I am telling you this - so why do you suppose Mike K and
> > > Greendistantstar etc. are still trying to mock me on this?
>
> > Because you deserve to be mocked.
>
> So you basically admit to lying and mocking in order to support your
> position on this issue.

No, I admit to mocking you, that's it.

> Do you believe in it? No? Then why do you keep lying and telling
> people that's what I believe?

I have never said you believe in it. I said the one link you threw
down, links to an article in which the authors believe in it.

> > Show me where *I* claimed *you* believed in Chi bolts.
>
> You insinuate as much when you mock me by talking about a Ki-shield.

I was mocking the whole concept of a chi shield.

> You're apparently too stupid to realise the entire purpose of the
> article is to demonstrate emitted Ki isn't viable.

You really need to reread the article, and the other articles posted
by those authors.

> > You are a phraud.
>
> You're a liar, and a complete moron. It isn't like you haven't been
> told, and yet, you persist in your delusion of what other people think

*I* know how to read a journal article, you do not.

-Mike K.


02 Apr 2008 07:18:57
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 10:08=A0am, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 9:18=A0am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Anyone can simply go and read the article.
>
> > Correct.
>
> Indeed. The article does appear to be scientific. It might have
> shortcomings, but at least they proced in a straightforward honest
> manner.

*edit*

=2E..more scientific...

-Mike K.


02 Apr 2008 08:26:46
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 10:08 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 9:18 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Anyone can simply go and read the article.
>
> > Correct.
>
> Indeed. The article does appear to be scientific. It might have
> shortcomings, but at least they proced in a straightforward honest
> manner.

As do I by including it in the Chi FAQ. The entire POINT is that it is
properly done. Not some assinine, mocking comment with no real or
lasting value. It therefore has the highest form of credibility,
transcending you, me, and this entire issue.

> > > Show me where *I* claimed *you* believed in Chi bolts.
>
> > You insinuate as much when you mock me by talking about a Ki-shield.
>
> I was mocking the whole concept of a chi shield.

If chi existed in the way it was being tested it is more than
conceivable that it could be shielded.

> > > You are a phraud.
>
> > You're a liar, and a complete moron. It isn't like you haven't been
> > told, and yet, you persist in your delusion of what other people think
>
> *I* know how to read a journal article, you do not.

And what conclusions have you reached based on their results?

-


02 Apr 2008 09:57:13
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 11:26=A0am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> > Indeed. The article does appear to be scientific. It might have
> > shortcomings, but at least they proced in a straightforward honest
> > manner.
>
> As do I by including it in the Chi FAQ.

Granted, it is more scientific than alot of other stuff out there.
Case in point, it stands in stark contrast against the phaq in which
it is presented.

>The entire POINT is that it is
> properly done. Not some assinine, mocking comment with no real or
> lasting value. It therefore has the highest form of credibility,

It does not, not even close.

> transcending you, me, and this entire issue.

Perhaps, you. But certainly not me and this issue.


> > > > Show me where *I* claimed *you* believed in Chi bolts.
>
> > > You insinuate as much when you mock me by talking about a Ki-shield.
>
> > I was mocking the whole concept of a chi shield.
>
> If chi existed in the way it was being tested it is more than
> conceivable that it could be shielded.

So, you admit I never said you believed in Chi bolts.

> > *I* know how to read a journal article, you do not.
>
> And what conclusions have you reached based on their results?

My conclusion is that they cannot reproducibly measure chi with their
instruments. And that they use a Ki shield and Ki reflectors.

-Mike K.


02 Apr 2008 10:05:42
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 3, 12:57 am, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 11:26 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Indeed. The article does appear to be scientific. It might have
> > > shortcomings, but at least they proced in a straightforward honest
> > > manner.
>
> > As do I by including it in the Chi FAQ.
>
> Granted, it is more scientific than alot of other stuff out there.
> Case in point, it stands in stark contrast against the phaq in which
> it is presented.

Sure, whatever Mike. it's not like anyone is listening to you anymore.
That included me a long time ago. Remember, I play with you - I ignore
you when it suits me. Your usefulness on this is almost at an end.
Have fun knowing the truth :)

> >The entire POINT is that it is
> > properly done. Not some assinine, mocking comment with no real or
> > lasting value. It therefore has the highest form of credibility,
>
> It does not, not even close.

Prove it. Oh yeah - you can't.

-


02 Apr 2008 10:21:56
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 1:05=A0pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> That included me a long time ago. Remember, I play with you - I ignore
> you when it suits me.

Yeah, and it always seems to suit you just when you get your ass
handed to you.

> > >The entire POINT is that it is
> > > properly done. Not some assinine, mocking comment with no real or
> > > lasting value. It therefore has the highest form of credibility,
>
> > It does not, not even close.
>
> Prove it. Oh yeah - you can't.

Prove that it doesn't have the highest form of credibility? That's
easily done. You've already done so yourself.

-Mike K.


02 Apr 2008 19:32:54
Wayne Dobson
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

Renli wrote:
> On Apr 2, 6:06 pm, "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>> Greendistantstar wrote:

>>> Are you asking because you do not know, or is the question
>>> rhetorical?
>>
>>> How about YOU post YOUR definition, right here, right now.
>>
>> No, you need to post your understanding of what his definition of
>> 'chi' is; as you claimed that there is no such thing as 'chi', as he
>> defines it.
>
> That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I didn't ask as I know
> he has no definition and isn't really interested in one anyways :/

Yes, that's because he's all noise and no substance. He expects others to
substantiate their position, but that he shouldn't be expected to. Left to
his own devises, he'd continue to pretend that he knows much about anything,
use coercion to prise information out of others, then parrot it back to them
as if he knew it all along. I find that it works best to simply mock him.

--
Wayne Dobson
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"




02 Apr 2008 13:39:38
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 2:32=A0pm, "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com > wrote:

> Yes, that's because he's all noise and no substance. =A0

Dobbie, you are an imbecile. A flawed individual whose self-worth is
defined by the persona he has created on a newsgroup. At least Renli,
the deceptive phraud he is, has his dreams.

Your entire "life" is a dream.

-Mike K.


02 Apr 2008 16:56:02
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 3, 1:21 am, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 1:05 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That included me a long time ago. Remember, I play with you - I ignore
> > you when it suits me.
>
> Yeah, and it always seems to suit you just when you get your ass
> handed to you.
>
> > > >The entire POINT is that it is
> > > > properly done. Not some assinine, mocking comment with no real or
> > > > lasting value. It therefore has the highest form of credibility,
>
> > > It does not, not even close.
>
> > Prove it. Oh yeah - you can't.
>
> Prove that it doesn't have the highest form of credibility? That's
> easily done. You've already done so yourself.

Dodge noted and mocked.

-


03 Apr 2008 03:25:57
Greendistantstar
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!


"Wayne Dobson" <nospam@noaddress.com > wrote in message
news:sjQIj.2055$tW.1156@newsfet29.ams...
> Renli wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 6:06 pm, "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>>> Greendistantstar wrote:
>
>>>> Are you asking because you do not know, or is the question
>>>> rhetorical?
>>>
>>>> How about YOU post YOUR definition, right here, right now.
>>>
>>> No, you need to post your understanding of what his definition of
>>> 'chi' is; as you claimed that there is no such thing as 'chi', as he
>>> defines it.
>>
>> That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I didn't ask as I know
>> he has no definition and isn't really interested in one anyways :/
>
> Yes, that's because he's all noise and no substance.

Well isn't that rich coming from a guy whose only ma experience is standing in
front of a mirror!

> He expects others to substantiate their position, but that he shouldn't be
> expected to.

What would you like me to substantiate? I can substantiate my credentials to you
in person, but you don't want any of that, do you?

> Left to his own devises (sic) he'd continue to pretend that he knows much about
> anything,

Uh Dobbie, it's YOU that's the pretender, lost in your little dream-world of
killing people with one punch and your "killing zone".

> use coercion to prise information out of others,

How do I coerce others, simpleton?

> then parrot it back to them as if he knew it all along.

????

> I find that it works best to simply mock him.

On that score, you have failed miserably.
--
GDS

"Let's roll!"





03 Apr 2008 09:55:59
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 2, 7:56=A0pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> > Prove that it doesn't have the highest form of credibility? That's
> > easily done. You've already done so yourself.
>
> Dodge noted and mocked.

You are a dodge. And you are the most mocked person on r.m.a.

-Mike K.


03 Apr 2008 16:19:08
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 4, 12:55 am, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 7:56 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Prove that it doesn't have the highest form of credibility? That's
> > > easily done. You've already done so yourself.
>
> > Dodge noted and mocked.
>
> You are a dodge. And you are the most mocked person on r.m.a.
>
> -Mike K.

That would be you.

-


03 Apr 2008 18:04:05
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 3, 7:19 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

>
> > You are a dodge. And you are the most mocked person on r.m.a.
>
> > -Mike K.

I'm sorry. Please send me the link to the "Mike K." soundtrack. I
can't seem to find it.

-Mike K.



03 Apr 2008 22:20:49
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 4, 9:04 am, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 7:19 pm, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > You are a dodge. And you are the most mocked person on r.m.a.
>
> > > -Mike K.
>
> I'm sorry. Please send me the link to the "Mike K." soundtrack. I
> can't seem to find it.
>
> -Mike K.

What are you trying to say? Spit it out, Mike, and stop playing
children's games. This act of yours is really quite pathetic.

-


04 Apr 2008 05:32:26
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 4, 1:20=A0am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> > I'm sorry. Please send me the link to the "Mike K." soundtrack. I
> > can't seem to find it.
>
> > -Mike K.
>
> What are you trying to say? Spit it out, Mike, and stop playing
> children's games. This act of yours is really quite pathetic.

Um ok. Go back two posts ...
****
You are a dodge. And you are the most mocked person on r.m.a.
****

Isn't that straightforward enough?

Why do you insist on playing the idiot?. Is it because it is a role
you play very well? Almost as if you were born to play the part?
Perhaps you were, but trust me you can rise above your fate, it is an
illusion. You can become sincere, honest and straightforward. All you
have to do is rise above your shell game.

-Mike K.



04 Apr 2008 15:01:27
Wayne Dobson
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

Mike wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2:32 pm, "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's because he's all noise and no substance.
>
> Dobbie, you are an imbecile. A flawed individual whose self-worth is
> defined by the persona he has created on a newsgroup.

One of these days you're going to press 'Play' and YMCA is going to come
out, instead of this nonsense.

> At least Renli, the deceptive phraud he is, has his dreams.
>
> Your entire "life" is a dream.

Take your pills.

--
Wayne Dobson
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"




04 Apr 2008 15:23:25
Wayne Dobson
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

Greendistantstar wrote:
> "Wayne Dobson" <nospam@noaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:sjQIj.2055$tW.1156@newsfet29.ams...
>> Renli wrote:
>>> On Apr 2, 6:06 pm, "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>>>> Greendistantstar wrote:
>>
>>>>> Are you asking because you do not know, or is the question
>>>>> rhetorical?
>>>>
>>>>> How about YOU post YOUR definition, right here, right now.
>>>>
>>>> No, you need to post your understanding of what his definition of
>>>> 'chi' is; as you claimed that there is no such thing as 'chi', as
>>>> he defines it.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I didn't ask as I
>>> know he has no definition and isn't really interested in one
>>> anyways :/
>>
>> Yes, that's because he's all noise and no substance.
>
> Well isn't that rich coming from a guy whose only ma experience is
> standing in front of a mirror!

You're only MA experience appears to be fighting with strawmen.

>> He expects others to substantiate their position, but that he
>> shouldn't be expected to.
>
> What would you like me to substantiate? I can substantiate my
> credentials to you in person, but you don't want any of that, do you?

Thank you, but I have to suffer the company of enough dumbasses where I am,
without looking to meet more.

>> Left to his own devises (sic) he'd continue to pretend that he knows
>> much about anything,
>
> Uh Dobbie, it's YOU that's the pretender, lost in your little
> dream-world of killing people with one punch and your "killing zone".

That brings me round to the question of exactly how you'd go about fighting
20-odd assailants, by yourself, unarmed, killing them all. You never quite
got around to answering that.

>> use coercion to prise information out of others,
>
> How do I coerce others, simpleton?

Let me see: calling their mother a whore, that they're stupid, that they
don't know anything about MA, that you'll find them and do something
unpleasant to them, etc; that sort of repetitive nonsense that only masks
the fact that you're a ignorant dumbass, unable to sustain a reasoned
argument.

>> then parrot it back to them as if he knew it all along.
>
> ????

It fell down the crack in the settee.

>> I find that it works best to simply mock him.
>
> On that score, you have failed miserably.

Au contraire, it's become such a welcome fixture that you've even gotten
used to it. Don't tell me that you don't rush gleefully to the computer, in
the morning, to see what manner of entertaining *scorn* the good House Elf
has decided to pour on you for the day?

--
Wayne Dobson
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"




04 Apr 2008 07:35:23
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 4, 8:32 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> Why do you insist on playing the idiot?. Is it because it is a role
> you play very well? Almost as if you were born to play the part?
> Perhaps you were, but trust me you can rise above your fate, it is an
> illusion. You can become sincere, honest and straightforward. All you
> have to do is rise above your shell game.

Sorry - did you have something important to say?

-


04 Apr 2008 08:01:16
Mike
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 4, 10:35=A0am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote:

> > Why do you insist on playing the idiot?. Is it because it is a role
> > you play very well? Almost as if you were born to play the part?
> > Perhaps you were, but trust me you can rise above your fate, it is an
> > illusion. You can become sincere, honest and straightforward. All you
> > have to do is rise above your shell game.
>
> Sorry - did you have something important to say?

Yes, my advice to you is to start acting in a straightforward, sincere
manner.

-Mike K.



04 Apr 2008 08:17:28
Renli
Re: Get your Ki shield here! For a limited time only!

On Apr 4, 11:01 pm, Mike <mkornecki2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 10:35 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why do you insist on playing the idiot?. Is it because it is a role
> > > you play very well? Almost as if you were born to play the part?
> > > Perhaps you were, but trust me you can rise above your fate, it is an
> > > illusion. You can become sincere, honest and straightforward. All you
> > > have to do is rise above your shell game.
>
> > Sorry - did you have something important to say?
>
> Yes, my advice to you is to start acting in a straightforward, sincere
> manner.
>
> -Mike K.

mental note. the boy knows too much.

-