'Apparently we're both good at that. ;~D'
Bollocks. I've done nothing but respond to your claims.

No, you are merely throwing out crap like "cyclist argument" in lieu of an argument. Face it, your erudite arrogance dismisses anything I say, since you feel that I am simply beneath you.

The fact is, since science can't quantify the energy we may or may not radiate, it is entirely illogical to use it to back a statement for or against the concept.

Now, you can go back to your ivory tower and choke on your unwarranted self-importance.

'The fact is, since science can't quantify the energy we may or may not radiate, it is entirely illogical to use it to back a statement for or against the concept.'

Let me get this straight. You say that we may OR MAY NOT radiate 'energy'. Science cannot detect it. (N.B. Not 'quantify', but DETECT. Different thing.) Therefore this radiated energy must exist? You strike me as very confused, PT2K, and you obviously don't understand the fundamentals of science or scientific method.

I guess this must be why you resort to name calling, avoiding the question, devising phony claims and falsely attributing them to me. And you accuse me of being 'illogical'? How deliciously ironic.

P.S. I didn't say 'cyclist argument' - my point had nothing to to with cycling! I said 'CYCLIC argument'. Suggest you look it up.

Wow, and you're keen mind and sharp wit caught me in a typo! Wow, can you also roll over and play dead?

What I am saying is, it is logical to think that, since ALL electrical things radiate energy, there is no reason to think that we (as chemicoelectric things) do also. In fact, we know we do because that can be quantified.

I am also saying that since science has not yet learned to quantify any effects that energy may or may not have on others, science is not qualified to come to a conclusion either way.

Therefore scientific method cannot be used to back either side of the argument.

You follow scientific method as if it were a religious dogma. However, what your arrogance apparently can't accept is, scientific method is blind to that which cannot be quantified by the technology and knowledge of the day. So you are left denying the existance of anything you can't quantify. Which is a pretty piss poor way to look at life.

Dare to think about things yet to be learned, it really adds to the flavor of life!!

btw I was not insulting you, I was merely throwing your arrogance in your face.

Back to the original question...
Aura - This is how you carry yourself, how you appear. It is your outward appearance without having to utter a single word. This is what commands attention when you walk into a room. You don't have to DO anything to conjure up this aura. Most people either do or don't have it, it's largely due to their personality.

Charisma - How you interact with others. This is how the skill that makes business leaders successful as they can use their charm and personality to sell people on their ideas.

Charisma is the active piece, while aura is passive.

'Wow, and you're keen mind and sharp wit caught me in a typo!'
A 'typo' is when one accidentally hits the wrong key. You typed 'cyclist' rather than 'cyclic'. That's not a typo, it's simply using the wrong word. (Just like typing "you're" when you mean "your", in fact!)

'scientific method is blind to that which cannot be quantified by the technology and knowledge of the day.'
I almost agree with this - if by your persistent yet inappropriate use of 'quantify' you mean 'detect', and if by science 'being blind' to anything you mean that it finds no evidence for its existence.

'So you are left denying the existance of anything you can't quantify. Which is a pretty piss poor way to look at life.'
This is where we disagree. There are many things that lie outside the bounds of scientific investigation - art, beauty, love, faith etc. But if you claim a PHYSICAL and therefore scientifically measurable phenomenon - such as, in this case, the detection by humans of 'energy' radiated by other humans - you should be able to provide at least some scientific evidence to support it. Without any such evidence whatsoever, such claims are merely mumbo-jumbo; pseudo-scientific, new age quackery - an infinitely more 'piss poor way to look at life', to my mind.