stephen yan wrote:IT is foolish to say WHAT YOU SAID without being there and looked at quan pu and family tree book.
Have you done that ?
And how do you know I haven't done so ?
plus you said that you have seen QIming xuan's material other than cheng tian huong ,where are they?
Shall I give references to somebody who claim to be Cheng Tin Hung's disciple and yet say that "he has never seen the name Qi Minxuan in his *research*" when ANYBODY who has read Cheng's books would have seen them ? When it is available even on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wudang_Tai_Chi_Chuan ?!?
How do you explain this, please ?
master zhao you bin from yong nian never agreed with JIA'S claim.
Should I infer that he is one of the "taiji researcher's" list we are waiting for you ?
it is most likely stimulated by master ma yue liang 's fast form demonstration in yongnian in early 1990s,which after that , Jia and wu- hao xue started to claim fast form , paochui ect which made up to attract fools.
I am afraid the sets were there in the 80ies when I saw them.
if YM believes in Jia , then was tian zhao lin telling lies ?
When did you spoke to him and about what ?
Tian Zhaolin HAD a fast frame, that has been openly demonstrated by his son, which is nothing like Ma's.
Stephen, I really find it hard to follow what you say.
If you only stopped for a moment vomiting unconnected information in each and every post people might get a few decent things from what you say, as you say some interesting things here and there. The problem, as I see it, is that you pour (vomit) continuosly without end calling everybody who doesn't agree with you a lier or a brainless foolish and you mix a few and scattered facts with lots of unfounded and senseless opinions.
It is really too tough to discern between the facts and the opinions for those not really deep into this material, hopefully this is not your goal ...
YM