Any experience with 'Chinese medicine'?

[GentleLake]

And my point was simply that it's fair to assume that someone writing in a 21st Century forum is probably using current usage.

 

So I think any confusion that would arise would be the result of trying to apply a 19th Century meaning to the word, just as it would be confusing for me to refer to my brother as a virtuous with the expectation that someone would think I were calling him a stud.

[simba]

GentleLake: I didn't think or say at any point that anyone here was using the first meaning (which is still in use among homeopaths and researchers). I think we're both confused: you think I've said something I haven't (that I can see), and I have no idea why. That's why this will be a long post- I don't want to leave room for misunderstanding.

 

I just felt that the history/development of the word was helpful for understanding the reasons for being cautious about using it now, and for some of the nebulousness of its meaning: it helps to know that it began as a marketing term applied by one medical ideology to all its competitors because that influences how and why it's used today. I avoided adding it was a derisive one, and is still sometimes used as such, in case that seemed confrontational.

 

When I said something was allopathic I emphasized 'according to the people who invented the term' (similarly when I later corrected the misstatement of 'basically' instead of 'originally') to try and make sure that was conveyed. There are only two sentences in the post, that I can see, that this misunderstanding could be about: both of them are covered in the previous sentence, and I thought the combination of the two would be sufficient to clear this up. In neither of them was that meaning intended.

 

If there's any way to clarify that further please tell me. I don't know which sentence you have a problem with, which makes it more difficult. I'll edit 'basically' to 'originally' in the post if you like, or put in a sentence to clarify that the second meaning is the more common/modern. I didn't before because it seemed rude to edit it after it's been responded to.

 

I can't see where the disagreement lies. I can see that assuming others were using the less-common definition would be inappropriate- I'm in complete agreement with you, and I get your point- but I didn't do that.

 

Apologies everyone else for the side-track.