jon,
RE: “I forget sometimes that im not capable of properly educating the masses with my own bigoted belief structure.”. Thankfully however, I have no such limitations LOL. After all, this is an open forum where we are free to express our viewpoints. I have no illusions of changing anyone’s mind. Their views are born of their own perceptions and experience, a few lines of text from me isn’t going to shatter all of that, nor should it. What I think I can provide, though, is a perspective that isn’t usually very well-represented anymore within the internal arts. Namely, that aside from all the other wonderful benefits these arts have to offer us, they are still a seriously effective way to kick someone’s bohiney in the APPROPRIATE context. No, the martial arts aren’t all about learning to kick butt. That’s extreme. But neither are they about everything else to the exclusion of combat skills. That’s extreme, too, and neither extreme represents the truth of what the internal arts are.
RE: “Im only new to the internals so still havent really seen a lot and im sure my comments reflect my lack of exposure.”. No problem, everybody’s gotta start somewhere. I just wouldn’t want you to discount what the internal arts have to offer in terms of the most severe aspects of combat functionality based on erroneous stereotypes and then to let those views set like cement without ever checking into it for yourself.
RE: “Still im just here to learn and spout of my own opinionate crap every now and again to”. So am I. We all are. Some of us are just more willing to admit it than others. 
RE: " P.S any self respecting caravan would be decked out with the latest in fire resistant armor and mages using globes of invlunerablity.". Yeah, yeah…I’ve heard it all before. It’s not something a little Abi-Dalzim’s Horrid Wilting with Creeping Doom can’t handle, right before that Firestorm goes off. Especially if they’re done with a Chain Contingency.
bamboo leaf,
RE: “I think that the premise that these arts where common and taught to soldiers is incorrect.”. I haven’t read anybody offering up that premise in the thread thus far. The only internal art with links to the common soldiery is Xing Yi Quan, and that was arguably before it adopted internal principles (depending on whether you ask a Hebei or Shanxi stylist). My statement regarding use of neijia for sentry removal wasn’t a reference to an idea that such applications were/are taught as a part of a soldier’s combatives, since they weren’t, but rather to the idea that nevertheless they can function extremely well for that context if necessary. The overall point was that internal arts are just as capable of dishing out brutality as their external cousins under appropriate circumstances.
Historically, both Taijiquan and Baguazhang also have been taught with the specific purpose of combative use, to the Royal Palace Guard and the Imperial Guard, respectively, so it’s not as if these arts haven’t seen real life-or-death combat before.
RE: " The problem new age or not as I see it is when people try to duplicate high level skills with out really having the skill. So many things like don?t use force, and the idea of stick, follow release become corrupted with the use of force, speed and tech.". I would generally agree with the first part. What they ought to be doing is practicing and duplicating low-level skills if they are new. Even if one never progresses to the advanced ideas, Taijiquan has some nice things to offer skill-wise from day one. As for your second statement here, I would suggest that force, speed, and technique CAN corrupt the subtler ideas if forced prematurely, but that they don’t NECESSARILY corrupt them if used at the right time in one’s training and in proper context. It’s worth noting that quite a few past Taiji masters were known for having bountiful amounts of all three of those attributes.
RE: " Not many are willing to give up the idea of force. Even in using no force they view this as another way to use force. Not quite the same as using no force and following.". I agree that, no, it’s not the same. But neither SHOULD they be giving up usage of force entirely. Such a move would not be in agreement with the totality of the Classics, but only with certain portions. Force has its place in Taiji practice. If you are not in accord with that, we will simply have to agree to disagree on that particular issue and move on to discussing something more productive.
RE: “Of course we wouldn?t want to be confused with that new age hippy TC stereotype, gotta be careful about that.”. Even with the trademark sarcasm, I’ll still explain why I agree with the statement. Taijiquan doesn’t need hippie-culture influence. It’s done quite nicely for itself for a good long time without it. Quite frankly, we’ve seen what the influence of hippie culture has done to the art in this country for a few decades now, and it ain’t pretty. Especially according to the nearly unanimous opinions of high-level practitioners from the art’s country of origin. In contrast, I would readily agree that hippie culture would/does benefit from Taijiquan influence. Some, in spite of themselves, have become authentic Taiji proponents and have gained some of the institutionalized depth that they so eschewed back in the heyday of hippie culture.
The stereotype itself is to be avoided and checked. That doesn’t mean that we all don’t have something of value, possibly great value, to learn from certain ex- or old hippies on the subject.
