> Shannon, this matter of what is being distinguished is something
> that Susan
> raised in her last message, but adding a new twist: a mixture in
> which each
> medicine targets a different symptom. And she asks you -- not
> rhetorically, I trust -- why prescription of such a mixture on the
> basis
> she gives (each similar to a different hypothetical symptom of a
> patient's
> cold) should not be considered to be homoeopathy. I'd be fascinated
> if you
> could answer that question as any homoeopath could.
John, get a grip... If you would be "fascinated" if I "could answer
that question as any homeopath could," then I don't know why I am
bothering to have this conversation with you.
I'll give my answer within Susan's note.
> To do so, you'd have
> to abandon the entire basis of your apology for polypathy:
Ah no, I would not.
This is why we are not communicating.
You are apparently incapable of accepting the idea of plausibility of
non-identical answers to a question. Which means I am wasting my time
to keep repeating myself.
I have been trying to explain "a viewpoint" which is not necessarily
my own--but which I fully understand, and find to be one I can work
with successfully; can coexist with without the need to either tear my
own hair out or bite anyone's head off.
In other words, I do not demand that the entire world agree with my
own opinion, training, conclusions.
That appears to be a point upon which we will simply never agree.
So again (Hi Veronique! :o) ) c'est la vie... I can live with
that too.
The idea of attaching "modifiers" to the term "homeopathy" does not
send me into apoplectic fits.
The idea that words in common usage do *not* have the same meaning, as
when those words are used in a technical sense, OR within certain
groups of people.
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen