> it sounds, when you talk about "a controversial, not entirely correct,
> and Sinocentric answer to the question 'What is qi/ki/ch'?'" that you
> have definite ideas about what is "correct".
Well, to clarify, I have definite ideas about what is *not* correct. I
definitely believe that the term is used quite differently in different
places, many of those in spurious circumstances (a recent example on the
newsgroup involved a usage similar to cooties, in Japan), many of them
not.
A single 'definition' of the term(s), given from the point of view of a
single martial art, has a very definite problem IMO. My 'goal' for the
answer is that it either make almost everyone unhappy, or that it make
almost everyone happy. An answer de minimis that satisfies that would
be, "please ask the newsgroup" - everyone would certainly be unhappy, at
the least with a FAQ document refusing to answer a FAQ.
I'm still working on meeting the alternative goal, which is why the
FAQ hasn't yet changed.
> the standards to which
> you will adhere in the construction of your reference document should
> be stated outright, else you can legitimately be criticized for not
> reflecting the variety of opinions about this very broad question.
I agree. If you would like to look at it, the current FAQ entry is at
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mcweigel/rmafaq/rmafaq1.html#11.
> I'm not sure what the value of "teeth" is in a FAQ, especially one
> that is meant to represent a spectrum of opinion about a contentious
> or disputed subject.
I would like the answer to explore in some detail the different
perspectives, rather than give a throwaway 'YMMV' answer. Yes, the
mileage will vary, but it will vary in somewhat predictable ways, and
giving the reader insight into the different ways the answer is viewed
may give them insight into how they want to approach the answer, and
whether they want to.
> there *is* value in having reference files that
> might be called 'FAQs' which are strongly-oriented toward specific
> opinions. these push forward important standards of knowledge and
> sources of authority, which should, if possible, be specified within
> the introduction, as I mentioned above.
This is an interesting idea. I'll look into it some more.
> I'd recommend including as much as possible unless you have some kind
> of authority-standards you wish to maintain that are clearly stated
> within the document.
For now, I think I feel that the most I can take from his answer is
already echoed in the FAQ.
Incidentally, I am really glad I asked this question. Ya'll may be
losing respect for me by the minute, but I think I'm gaining some
helpful answers in return :)
-- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer mcweigel+@cs.cmu.edu************************************************************* To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here *************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved