"I think that the bulk of the folks on this thread are talking about Dan-type internal training - if you agree that you're doing something else then the statements above are just confusing.
If you're using those terms to mean something else, that's fine, but it would be easier if you didn't bring them into this context without making that clear.
With open discussion with anyone that wants to participate; ideas are exchanged. Our understanding of Aikido which incorporates internal strength may appeal to some.
My idea of what Dan and others like him practice is separate from Aikido technique. The way we train incorporates internal development with our understanding of the principles of Aikido. It is very interesting to us and maybe to others.
I'm not saying that anybody shouldn't participate. I never said that.
What I'm saying is that just because we both use the word "internal" or "internal strength" doesn't mean that we're talking about the same thing.
Ron stated above that he agreed that we're not talking about the same thing.
Considering that Dan has pretty much told me that we're not doing what he is teaching, I feel that I'm on solid ground agreeing with him.
If that's the truth, than talking about one thing in a discussion about another is confusing if everybody is using the same terms for different things. Since most of the people on the thread are talking about a Dan-type definition, it would be helpful if you clarify the differences rather than just saying "we do internals too" even though you mean something other than what other folks are talking about when they say "internals".