Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

>

> I'm sorry that I am " whining " for you to provide examples. However,

> despite the requests from Z'ev, myself, and Bob (who even provided a

> perfect way for you to bring to light any contention with minimal

> effort), you have provided none. You have argued again and again

> without substance. I have provided multiple examples, as has Bob

> Flaws. I'm sick of arguing with someone who doesn't have the time to

> give a rational response.

>

> Eric

[Jason]

1) Here is the deal, Both Z'ev and You admit the PD is limited. (Meaning

there are holes and exceptions)... Every translator I have talked with says

the same thing... If everyone aggress that the world is round why should I

spend the time to prove it to you... That is not the issue I care to debate,

period. As far as Bob's way of illustrating the point is far from 'perfect'

because he his asking about the 500 most common terms... I have no beef with

those, although I bet somewhere there will be an exception to those... That

is all I have to say about this dead horse...

 

2) You also agree that vernacular and Wiseman can co-exist at the same

time... Ok ME too... So what is the problem... So everyone who likes Wiseman

can publish in Wiseman, and people that don't, can do what they want...

People seem to think that if one uses a vernacular text then Wiseman

suddenly disappears from the shelves of the bookstore/ library/ student's

book bag... It is not going anywhere and students can still look up stuff

in there... I don't think every text (used in schools) should be Wiseman,

and I get the impression that this is what is being said... I think they

are helpful, but so are other texts... So we agree on that... But many times

what you call vernacular are Bensky's own technical term (bulging vs.

mounting qi). I think the real test is if he can communicate the information

correctly... Calling it simplified is degrading and not entirely correct.

But more importantly as far as I read it, it is calling it 'deficient'...

what else does it mean... If one is simple and the other complex, either the

simple one is A) superior because it conveys the idea better (which I know

you don't agree with) or B) the simplified one lacks something that the

complex one has (this is I assume what you are saying) therefore its lacking

something and would be vacuous, correct? Maybe it is more correct to say

that Bensky is not simplified just not sourced... Would you agree to that?

 

3) Cleary Bensky and Clavey do not like the Wiseman terms and think they are

too confining... I can see this point but think they take it too the

extreme, but I still respect their opinion - I would like to here more from

them to understand it better - I am in no position to really say anything.

But, there not wanting to publish a Wiseman text is their decision... If one

doesn't like a style then one has a right not to publish it.

 

4) As far as Feng Ye goes, you are right it did sound like I was calling him

out... This was not the intention and actually was supposed to be quite the

opposite, saying, 'look what he has given to the project...' - A fast post

to a fast read on my part... There is so little time in the day ....

 

 

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Thursday, October 28, 2004 7:25 AM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

>

> > [Jason]

> > First of all - I said nothing of the matter about feng ye... Please

> re-read

> > my post, it is misintrepetation....

>

> E: Ok, I re-read it. This is what Todd said, followed by your comment.

>

: A native

> > chinese or any other person without expertise in professional

> translation

> > has nothing to

> > offer on this topic, IMO, regardless of how well they know TCM.

> [Jason]

> Come on... get real.. So feng ye has nothing to offer the PD???

>

> Eric:

> This is clearly calling out Feng Ye, by name, and assuming that he

> lacks the expertise in professional translation, and thus would have

> nothing to offer to the topic. This demonstrates your propensity to

> make an assumption on something that you personally know nothing

> about. It is one thing to assume incorrectly, but it is entirely

> different to voice an opinion in public that has no basis in reality.

>

> > [Jason]

> > So I don't understand here... you admit that it is not possible for

> the PD

> > to have everything, but you whine because I have not presented

> examples...

> > Come on.. Like I said, I could care less about proving this to the

> group, it

> > si self-evident IMO... You can believe what you want...

>

> Eric:

> Of course it is not possible for the PD to have everything. It is

> only a single book and our field is lagging way behind other fields.

> Every major written language on the planet has adopted local

> terminology for WM. The fact that the PD is not complemented by any

> other texts does not show a limit in the PD, but rather a limit in our

> community's ability to form a cohesive and profession method of

> communication. CM terminology in English has only been recently

> developed and it still is not accepted.

>

> I agree that both vernacular terms and technical terms can peacefully

> co-exist. I simply feel that technical terms are more appropriate for

> professional discourse. I think vernacular is fine for speech and

> common purposes, because people can always switch to technical lingo

> anytime clarity is needed. No one contests the use of technical

> language in Western medicine. Does that mean that TCM is less

> sophisticated? Or does it simply mean that practitioners are less mature?

>

> As an aside, since I am constantly being requested to provide

> examples, I will provide another example of where confusion can result

> from non-standard terms. If you look at Doug's response to the Chuan

> Lian Zi inquiry in the past day or so, you will see a mention that

> chuan lian zi treats swelling and bulging disorders (aka mounting qi).

> Now, to my knowledge, chuan lian zi is not indicated for water

> swelling (often translated as edema), although it is indicated for

> mounting qi. This may be due to inadequate knowledge of obscure

> functions on my part, but I don't see any indications of chuan lian zi

> for water swelling. Is Doug extrapolating that it reduces swelling

> because it treats bulging disorders? Or maybe he just knows something

> that I don't know. Interestingly, edema is not a very accurate

> translation for water swelling, as edema includes toxic edema, which

> is not referred to as water swelling in Chinese sources. Water

> swelling is a more narrow term than edema.

[Jason]

 

I think you are going on the 20 year old Bensky... The new MM says nothing

of swelling and bulging... They use just bulging disorders. And what if you

don't know what a bulging disorder is, well... that is a good question...

Well you look at p. 1140 where it gives a nice definition with pinyin and

character... Once again, no example has been given yet! So you may debate

about the term choice (bulging vs. mounting), and that is fine, but that is

a different issue. But I can't see (yet) why he is more simplified, he just

likes different words... Eric do you have the new MM?

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Thursday, October 28, 2004 6:33 AM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

> >> [Jason]

> > That is a good point, but again I have come across many of the compound

> > terms that are not in the dictionary (because they are 'terms')... and

> > aren't simply liver qi stag... but you are right the number should be

> > lower, but many examples exist... you can check it out..

>

>

> Eric:

> Once again, you make a sweeping statement while failing to provide a

> single concrete example.

[Jason]

This is outrageous, by constantly asking for examples you resign yourself to

a position of denying that what I say is true... Are you saying that Wiseman

accounts for everything....? Are you saying that you think every term is in

the dictionary?.. this is outrageous.. So I will waste some time to prove

some points...

 

1) First and easiest is to prove that incomplete definitions of terms

exist... One can look at yinfire or rough pulse... Talk about simplified...

But I am not saying that Wiseman should every possible definition and usage,

how could he... this is general dictionary with the most mainstream view ...

 

2) Now the more involved part: Check out the wenrelun , do a search for (͸

·ç ÓÚ ÈÈ Íâ £¬ »ò Éø ʪ ÓÚ ÈÈ ÏÂ) tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 and shen4 shi1 yu2

re4 xia4 - A) there is no definition is the Wiseman dictionary for this

technical term! (you asked for an example of this) - b) Furthermore if you

translate straight with Wiseman speak (it is in the term list) it gives a

misrepresentation of the paragraph at hand. It gives the completely wrong

meaning, check it out... (you asked for an example of this) and C) here is a

technical term that is not even in the list of Wiseman Terms. תű֮»úÀ¨

zhuan3 nue4 zhi1 ji1 kuo4 - It shows up in a MODERN discussion of the

SanJiao (yet from a pre-modern quote, as they so often do) - It comes with a

paragraph explanation of what the 'term' means. Point 4) Even if Wiseman

had an entry of this term (w/o definition) it would be completely useless

because it is so bizarre... There you have the 4 examples elucidating all

the 4 points in question. Trust me there are many more, and there should

be... I can't believe you or Nigel even require examples. To ask someone

for examples in such a battering way gives the impression that you think

they do not exist.

 

But I will keep asking for examples from the Bensky text that show over

simplification or whatever you think is going on, because I have yet to see

any... (When you show the examples, I will be converted...)

 

-

[Guest guest]

also let look at mounting qi. using this term without elaboration does not give

any clue to which or the various possible manifestation of mounting qi is used

in any book section. If you give the rest of the needed information to clarify

which of the various possibilities are used then using mounting qi is

irrelevant, unless you are doing a search in Chinese literature.

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

and he never used Wiseman terms, and somehow I

understood everything...

>>>>And you studied at pcom which uses WT.

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> I think you are going on the 20 year old Bensky... The new MM says nothing

> of swelling and bulging... They use just bulging disorders. And what if

> you

> don't know what a bulging disorder is, well... that is a good question...

> Well you look at p. 1140 where it gives a nice definition with pinyin and

> character... Once again, no example has been given yet! So you may debate

> about the term choice (bulging vs. mounting), and that is fine, but that

> is

> a different issue. But I can't see (yet) why he is more simplified, he

> just

> likes different words... Eric do you have the new MM?

>

> -

[Jason]

Furthermore, Bensky for his list of technical terms supplies the Wiseman

term in [brackets] after the pinyin and character.. Obviously he likes his

term better but acknowledges a standard out there that other people may be

familiar with...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> have never once read something and been completely puzzled because

of the

> terminology... It communicates the ideas very clearly and I can use

ideas

> effectively in the clinic. This is what matters... I just also sat

through a

> lecture from Guo Hui Liu and he never used Wiseman terms, and somehow I

> understood everything... How is that possible? People argue that

adopting a

> set of terms is advanced... I think it is much more advanced to be

flexible

> enough to understand multiple positions...

>

> -

 

Just because your read or hear something in English and understand it

and can use your understanding clinically does not mean that your

English understanding is the same exact understanding that a native

Chinese TCM practitioner would have when reading or hearing the same

but in Chinese medical Chinese.

 

That is one of the points in this thread. People understand Bensky;

that is not the issue. However, are they getting the full

understanding of the what the original Chinese passages said before

they were translated by Bensky? That is more the point.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> and he never used Wiseman terms, and somehow I

> understood everything...

> >>>>And you studied at pcom which uses WT.

> alon

>

 

Unfortuntely, PCOM does not use WT. Only a few teachers use the

terminology, and some more than others because most of the students

have not taken the time to learn it well.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

> > I think you are going on the 20 year old Bensky... The new MM says

nothing

> of swelling and bulging... They use just bulging disorders. And

what if you

> don't know what a bulging disorder is, well... that is a good

question...

> Well you look at p. 1140 where it gives a nice definition with

pinyin and

> character...

 

 

I wasn't taking any issue with bulging disorder, which I know is

Bensky's new term for mounting (hernia in his old book). I was merely

wondering how swelling got mixed into the idea with regard to chuan

lian zi. I totally have no contest with Alon's point that it has

applicability for swelling when due to liver involvement, mind you.

This is just out of context because I was suggesting that the use of

the word swelling in Doug's post may have been arising from the

concept of bulging and confusion between bulging and swelling, which

are separate in any system or language use (mounting and the character

itself, a mountain in a disease radical do imply something bulging, so

it is not an area that I am contending with). Nor do I call Bensky's

technical vocab vernacular. Tonify, that is vernacular, but bulging

is not.

 

There is no need for an all-out turf war. I am merely arguing on

translation principles. Both forms of translation can peacefully

co-exist. Each person will have a preference for different styles,

and each person will find something useable in texts of either style.

I think there are more arguments for Wiseman terms when designing how

you want to create your own text, but I appreciate that Bensky made a

massive revision of his older work.

 

I have spent enough time on this topic and I'm sure many readers are

sick of it by now as well.

 

Best,

Eric

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> >

> > smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> > Thursday, October 28, 2004 7:25 AM

> >

> > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > [Jason]

> > > First of all - I said nothing of the matter about feng ye... Please

> > re-read

> > > my post, it is misintrepetation....

> >

> > E: Ok, I re-read it. This is what Todd said, followed by your

comment.

> >

> : A native

> > > chinese or any other person without expertise in professional

> > translation

> > > has nothing to

> > > offer on this topic, IMO, regardless of how well they know TCM.

> > [Jason]

> > Come on... get real.. So feng ye has nothing to offer the PD???

> >

> > Eric:

> > This is clearly calling out Feng Ye, by name, and assuming that he

> > lacks the expertise in professional translation, and thus would have

> > nothing to offer to the topic. This demonstrates your propensity to

> > make an assumption on something that you personally know nothing

> > about. It is one thing to assume incorrectly, but it is entirely

> > different to voice an opinion in public that has no basis in reality.

> >

> > > [Jason]

> > > So I don't understand here... you admit that it is not possible for

> > the PD

> > > to have everything, but you whine because I have not presented

> > examples...

> > > Come on.. Like I said, I could care less about proving this to the

> > group, it

> > > si self-evident IMO... You can believe what you want...

> >

> > Eric:

> > Of course it is not possible for the PD to have everything. It is

> > only a single book and our field is lagging way behind other fields.

> > Every major written language on the planet has adopted local

> > terminology for WM. The fact that the PD is not complemented by any

> > other texts does not show a limit in the PD, but rather a limit in our

> > community's ability to form a cohesive and profession method of

> > communication. CM terminology in English has only been recently

> > developed and it still is not accepted.

> >

> > I agree that both vernacular terms and technical terms can peacefully

> > co-exist. I simply feel that technical terms are more appropriate for

> > professional discourse. I think vernacular is fine for speech and

> > common purposes, because people can always switch to technical lingo

> > anytime clarity is needed. No one contests the use of technical

> > language in Western medicine. Does that mean that TCM is less

> > sophisticated? Or does it simply mean that practitioners are less

mature?

> >

> > As an aside, since I am constantly being requested to provide

> > examples, I will provide another example of where confusion can result

> > from non-standard terms. If you look at Doug's response to the Chuan

> > Lian Zi inquiry in the past day or so, you will see a mention that

> > chuan lian zi treats swelling and bulging disorders (aka mounting qi).

> > Now, to my knowledge, chuan lian zi is not indicated for water

> > swelling (often translated as edema), although it is indicated for

> > mounting qi. This may be due to inadequate knowledge of obscure

> > functions on my part, but I don't see any indications of chuan lian zi

> > for water swelling. Is Doug extrapolating that it reduces swelling

> > because it treats bulging disorders? Or maybe he just knows something

> > that I don't know. Interestingly, edema is not a very accurate

> > translation for water swelling, as edema includes toxic edema, which

> > is not referred to as water swelling in Chinese sources. Water

> > swelling is a more narrow term than edema.

> [Jason]

>

Once again, no example has been given yet! So you may debate

> about the term choice (bulging vs. mounting), and that is fine, but

that is

> a different issue. But I can't see (yet) why he is more simplified,

he just

> likes different words... Eric do you have the new MM?

>

> -

[Guest guest]

>

> bcataiji [bcaom]

>

> That is one of the points in this thread. People understand Bensky;

> that is not the issue. However, are they getting the full

> understanding of the what the original Chinese passages said before

> they were translated by Bensky? That is more the point.

[Jason]

I get it... and am open to it... but I have yet to see any proof that Bensky

is missing the full understanding.. Do you have something to add that

elucidates this point? Same with GHL's Warm disease Book, this is not a

straight translation, it doesn't use WT... Does it lack something?

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

>

 

> I get it... and am open to it... but I have yet to see any proof

that Bensky

> is missing the full understanding.. Do you have something to add that

> elucidates this point? Same with GHL's Warm disease Book, this is not a

> straight translation, it doesn't use WT... Does it lack something?

>

> -Jason

 

In order to answer your question (and Eric alluded to this), we need

the exact Chinese hanzi that Bensky used to come up with a passage on

a particular herb. Then, that hanzi can be converted to Wiseman

terminology. Then, people can judge accordingly.

 

I have alread initiated discussion on the exterior releasing herbs in

Bensky and Bob Flaws elaborated. I find Flaws 260 Essential

Medicinals a much more clear and revealing read for the functions of

the medicinals in that category. I understood more. I got a more

full understanding. That is not to stay that the Bensky text was

lacking; perhaps I am not as adept at reading the Bensky text than I

am at reading the Flaws text, but this is not likely.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Jason,

China is a very large country. There is a small but growing

minority that is adapting Wiseman terminology. Nigel, Bob Felt or Eric

should be able to fill you in on the details.

 

 

On Oct 28, 2004, at 9:31 AM, wrote:

 

>

>

> >

> > smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> >

> > WM terms will prevail in WM journals.   Jason has referenced the

> > absence of Wiseman terms in Chinese journals of TCM.  This is due to

> > the simple reason that the journals are published in Chinese, not

> > English.  Wiseman terms are, by definition, terms in English.

> >

> > Eric

> >

> [Jason]

> Not true.,. I get journals (from China) in English and in Chinese...

> Every

> Journal I get in Chinese also has a English Index... I do not see

> Wiseman

> terms there or in the books I have bought from China (English

> books)...  I

> just thought you were saying how prominent the Wiseman speak is in

> China...

> I just ask, if so, what are they doing with it - or where is it

> prominant?

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

While I also like and use the Warm Disease text, it would be much

easier to compare and use terms if the Eastland Press folks published a

gloss of all terms used. I've asked them a few times, haven't seen any

yet.

 

 

On Oct 28, 2004, at 9:38 AM, wrote:

 

>

> Exactly, there are multiple opinions and will always be... That is the

> nature of CM...  The more I read in Chinese the more I see this and

> laugh at

> attempts to put everything in a Box... The Chinese have never done

> this (as

> a whole) like WM...  I know Todd loves the Warm Disease (as do I)...

> But I

> have never once read something and been completely puzzled because of

> the

> terminology... It communicates the ideas very clearly and I can use

> ideas

> effectively in the clinic. This is what matters... I just also sat

> through a

> lecture from Guo Hui Liu and he never used Wiseman terms, and somehow

> I

> understood everything... How is that possible?  People argue that

> adopting a

> set of terms is advanced... I think it is much more advanced to be

> flexible

> enough to understand multiple positions...

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

I don't understand your point here. I do know that understanding

the character shan4 ~{p^~} , which has the mountain radical inside the

disease radical, gives the sense of a disorder welling up from the

inside outwards (therefore, mounting upwards). For me, it expresses

the Chinese character into English understanding much more effectively

than 'hernia', or leaving it as 'shan disorder'.

 

I think this is an important point. An individual with a working

knowledge of medical Chinese, which includes yourself, I believe, is

looking for the best term choice to translate the Chinese concept into

the target language. One should expect that it would be more difficult

to comprehend technical terms in Chinese medicine if they have no clue

about the Chinese language.

 

While the Bensky, Macciocia, and Clavey texts may be an easier read,

take it from me, many students and practitioners haven't a clue to

understanding the so-called 'transparent' terms. Whenever I ask

students if they know what many of these terms mean (before entering

courses with teachers who use Wiseman terminology), they haven't a

clue. It is embarrassing. It is a bit absurd to use terms like

meridians, toxin, qi, tonification and sedation if you can't define

what they mean.

 

 

On Oct 28, 2004, at 9:49 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> also let look at mounting qi. using this term without elaboration does

> not give any clue to which or the various possible manifestation of

> mounting qi is used in any book section. If you give the rest of the

> needed information to clarify which of the various possibilities are

> used then using mounting qi is irrelevant, unless you are doing a

> search in Chinese literature.

> alon

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> bcataiji [bcaom]

> Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:05 PM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

> >

>

> > I get it... and am open to it... but I have yet to see any proof

> that Bensky

> > is missing the full understanding.. Do you have something to add that

> > elucidates this point? Same with GHL's Warm disease Book, this is not a

> > straight translation, it doesn't use WT... Does it lack something?

> >

> > -Jason

>

> In order to answer your question (and Eric alluded to this), we need

> the exact Chinese hanzi that Bensky used to come up with a passage on

> a particular herb. Then, that hanzi can be converted to Wiseman

> terminology. Then, people can judge accordingly.

[Jason]

Brian,

 

I find this quite interesting, and somewhat of a cop-out.. Yours (and

eric's) stance is that we need some 'original Chinese' to compare Bensky to,

to determine if it is actually simplified or not... Yet this (as Eric

states) can't be done, although people are still willing to call it

simplified... This is complete circular conjecture. There is no proof, so

how can you know? And where does someone get off saying things without

proof?

 

I think Eric, Bob et al demonstrated that your 'release the exterior'

example was not sufficient... Others?

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> how can you know? And where does someone get off saying things without

> proof?

 

I don't know. Did you give Eric his proof yet????

 

 

> I think Eric, Bob et al demonstrated that your 'release the exterior'

> example was not sufficient... Others?

>

> -

 

In fact, what Bob Flaws wrote showed that the WT used for functions of

medicinals in that category gave a more complete understanding.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Greetings All -

 

I have not responded to a CHA post in a long time - I

am simply too busy to read them all on a regular basis

- but I was recently told about the terminological

discussion going on and felt compelled to read it, and

of course, to respond.

 

Although this may seem odd, I wish to begin by

" introducing " myself to the group again so that

everyone is clear on my background or my " credentials "

if you will. I began studying Chinese in 1981 as a

freshman in college. I lived for in Taiwan for a

year in the early 80's and then graduated from

Middlebury College with a B.A. in East Asian Studies.

I completed a Master's degree in Anthropology at the

University of Washington where I conducted field work

with an elderly Cantonese practitioner of Chinese

medicine. Although I have not completed my Ph.D. I

conducted fieldwork at the Tianjin College of

Traditional in the early '90's for

the degree. I returned to the States and began

teaching Chinese language and Chinese History at ACTCM

in San Francisco. After moving to NY I " completed " my

Chinese medicine study at PCOMNY. While still a

student I was asked by Churchill Livingstone to edit a

translated copy of Deng Tie Tao's Practical Diagnosis

in . This translation was so

unreadable that I proposed simply re-translating it.

This translation was completed just prior to my

graduation from PCOM. Also while a student I continued

teaching Chinese language and Chinese medical history

at PCOM. Upon my graduation I continued to teach -

branching out into other classes. I later was the

Clinic Director and then the Chair of the Dept. of

Oriental Medicine at the New York College for

Wholistic Health in Syosset, NY where I worked with

Craig Mitchell on the translation of Jiao Shu De's Ten

Lectures on Chinese Medicinals. I am currently the

Chair of the Acupuncture Curriculum Committee at Touro

College's Graduate Program in Oriental Medicine. I am

not a publisher, I receive no monetary profit from the

translation of Practical Diagnosis and not much from

Jiao.

 

I am highly invested in the Wiseman terminology. When

the 1st edition of the PD came out in the early '90's

my husband and I began the work of introducing the

concept of a standardized terminology to our faculty

and students and this is an endeavor that we have

continued at every institution with which we have been

engaged. At Touro college we are committed to the use

of this terminology as we have seen the difference it

makes for students.

 

I would like to address some of the issues that have

been raised regarding terminology. If I do not

mention individuals by name, please forgive me. If I

piss people off, I am not trying to do that and so

please do not " take it personally " . As an educator, a

clinician and a translator who has been involved with

this medicine and with the Wiseman terminology for a

long time, I am simply trying to express some of my

thoughts.

 

First of all, I wish to commend Bensky, Clavey and

Stoger for the 3rd Edition of the Materia Medica. I

have begun using it in my classes this semester and

find it much more useful as a text. It is clear that

many of the suggestions that Bensky must have recieved

over the years have been incorporated into the text.

Obviously, I regret the fact that Bensky is so

strongly opposed to the use of Wiseman's terminology,

however it is interesting to me that, as I move

through the book (and I have really only worked with

the regulate qi substances to this point) many of the

changes that have been made in the book actually bring

the terminological choices closer in line with Wiseman

than I expected. So, in other words, I find the text

very useful - but I also find myself attempting to

translate the text to my students so that they can

understand Bensky's terminological choices in relation

to Wiseman's terms (the back of Fundamentals of

has a very succinct little Materia

Medica that is very helpful for this). This helps my

students to understand the theoretical underpinnings

of the terms Bensky uses. For example, last week we

were discussing Substances that Regulate (Rectify) Qi.

In the new edition, Bensky has begun to use the term

" bulging " for shan4 (previously translated as hernia,

and translated by Wiseman as mounting).

Unfortunately, while I greatly prefer the term bulging

to the term hernia, Bensky does not differentiate the

7 types of mounting/bulging, using simply the term

bulging for all types (as far as I can see). Is this

clinically relevant? Yes. Wiseman on the other hand

differentiates and names each of the 7 types of

mounting. So, as I teacher, I find myself going

through the text and identifying the type of mounting

that a particular substance might be appropriate to

treat and helping my students to clarify this. I am

able to do this because I have a greater understanding

of the substances than my students do (I hope) but

would it not have been useful for Bensky et. al. to

simply make this simple differentiation, thereby

helping the student and the practitioner to better

differentiate one substance from another. Again, as

Bob Flaws so clearly stated: go ahead and disagree

with Wiseman, go ahead and make a different

terminological choice, just make it transparent and

make it readily available to the reader.

 

So many points have been raised in this terminological

discussion that I barely know where to begin. Like

Bob Flaws, Bob Felt, Nigel, Eric and others I often

get tired of trying to " prove a point " . Sometimes I

give up and simply retreat into my clinical practice.

And then, something comes up in class that makes me

remember: Oh Yeah, that is why terminology is

important. So, once again, here I go.

 

As was pointed out in an earlier post, the language of

medicine was originally Greek and Latin. This

language was imported with the medicine and until

relatively recently, physicians all learned Greek

and/or Latin in order to understand the language.

Would that all of our students learned Chinese and we

could simply ignore this issue (I am definitely with

you on this one Bob). Unfortunately due to numerous

economic and social considerations this is not what

occurred when this medicine was exported from the

Chinese community in the United States to the American

community in the United States. Some of you may

remember (and I have heard stories) of students

struggling to understand their teachers and of

students with no understanding of Chinese or Chinese

medicine " translating " their teachers texts. Well,

these were the first texts available (and this was not

so long ago). The number of books in our field has

multiplying 10 fold (or more) in the past 20 years.

However, because early students of this medicine were

often " counter-culture " or seeking the harmony and

knowledge of the east they did not care too much about

how the text was written, as long as they could

understand it. As a result, many quite wonderful

books (for example the work of C.S. Cheung) has never

really made it into the mainstream because it has

always posed such a difficulty reading and

understanding it. Other work has become very

mainstream because it was " so readable " - never mind

the fact that it might not portray the reality of

Chinese medical theory. And so now, here we are. A

much larger handful of individuals do read Chinese and

are working on translation. We have a much better

understanding of how translation should be conducted,

of what the difference is between a translation and a

personal experience book. The mere fact that we are

able to have this conversation, that someone with the

linguistic credentials of Nigel Wiseman is interested

in this field speaks to the advancement of our

profession. And yet, we erred, long ago, in not

requiring students to understand the source language.

And so now we must deal with that error, an error that

the economics of CM education will not allow us to

undo, by producing books that are as true to the

source language as possible.

 

Jason, I believe it was you who brought up the topic

of trusting an author/translator. This is a very, very

difficult proposition. Sticking solely to the issue

of translation, what are the criteria that would be

used to allow us to trust a translator. Is is

clinical experience? How does one's clinical

experience affect one's ability to read and translate

Chinese? I know the argument - if the translator is

not a clinician how can he/she expect to really

understand what a book is talking about? Well, if a

clinician decides to become a translator, is it not

more likely that his/her clinical

experience/viewpoints will shape his/her translation

choices? Would it not be better for that clinician to

either: 1) write a book that he/she clearly indicates

is his/her perspective and to explain his/her

qualifications for holding that perspective or 2) to

translate a book using a standard terminology thereby

removing his/her own experience as much as possible,

but inserting commentary (a much revered tradition in

China) into footnotes where appropriate? This allows

the reader to know much more clearly what is

translation and what is opinion/clinical experience.

I would rather place my translation trust in someone

who is well-grounded in the source language and also

in the standards for translation and translation

theory. Obviously, ideally this individual would work

in a team or with a partner who is a clinician so as

to clarify issues that might be obscure without a

clinician's insight. The team of Feng Ye and Nigel

Wiseman seems to me to fit this bill pretty perfectly.

Does this mean that I do not trust Bensky? No, but

it does mean that I am more apt to question how

interpretive his translation is and how much it is

influenced by his own clinical experience. This is

not a bad thing. It is simply something that I, as a

reader, want to know. This is why I posted my

background prior to responding. This allows the

reader to decide whether or not to trust me!

 

Several people brought up the point that we cannot

expect our students or our clinicians to constantly

have to refer to a dictionary in order to read a book.

I simply cannot agree! First, it is not that tedious

a process. Most of the terms that are used by

Wiseman/Ye are used quite frequently. So, after

looking up a term a few times, you no longer need to.

Second, why should we not have the expectation of our

students that they will look further than simply at

the required reading. This is, after all, graduate

school. As a graduate student I spent a lot of time

with a dictionary and a thesaurus. Why shouldn't our

students. And please, do not give me the argument

that " academics " are different from clinical medicine.

I do not know how or why being an " academic " has

become an insult in this field, but as a teacher, a

scholar and a clinician I have no problem demanding

the same type of rigor from my students. I expect

them to have completed the required reading before

coming to class and if they come to class and ask me

what a word means - I will send them to the dictionary

- a place they should have been before they came to

class. We all feel free to gripe about the quality of

our CM educations, but how many of us can really say

that we went the extra mile or did the extra work to

really understand what was being taught. Yes, it is

incumbent on teachers to teach well but it is also

incumbent on students to work well and to be prepared

for class so that they do not need to be spoon fed.

In the end, spending the extra five minutes it takes

to look up a word will greatly enhance the student's

understanding and, in the end, make them a better

clinician.

 

Translation in our field is still young. When I first

translated Practical Diagnosis I had no idea what I

was doing. I was someone who spoke Chinese, who had

some understanding of Chinese medicine and who was

willing to work hard for very little reward. Later,

when working with Craig Mitchell, Michael Helme and

Nigel on Jiao, I learned a lot about translation and

looking back on Practical Diagnosis now, it is riddled

with errors and odd language. I have even offered to

do a revision but Churchill was not interested. So,

as Bob Flaws said, to use some of the older

translations using Wiseman terminology as examples of

how it does not work is problematic. Yes, these books

are out there, and they are examples of how this

terminology can be misused. But, just as a clinician

spends several years learning how to practice CM

before he/she feels confident about his/her skills,

translation is also something that must be learned.

When the first edition of Fundamentals of Chinese

medicine came out, it was considered much too

difficult to read to be a useful text. The next

edition corrected many of the problems of the first

and made it into an excellent fundamental theory

textbook. When Bob Flaws first began publishing using

the standard terminology, the complaints from students

were non-stop. And yet, as he got better at, and the

students learned the language, the terminology become

almost a non-issue. In Touro's program, whenever

possible, we use a text that uses the Wiseman

terminology. Initially there is some griping, but by

the end of the first semester students are so used to

the terminology that understanding the books and

understanding the importance of the dictionary is no

longer an issue. Let us look at the most commonly

used Fundamental Theory textbooks as an example.

These are: Wiseman: Fundamentals of ,

Maciocia: Foundations of and CAM.

Using the idea of trust for the author/translator and

being true to the medicine as it is taught in China,

let us look at each one of these:

 

Fundamentals: A denotative translation of modern

Chinese medicine fundamental theory textbooks by a

Ph.D linguist who works and teaches at a College of

in Taiwan, whose work is used and

published in China and whose language is made readily

available and transparent to the reader. Sometimes

difficult to read for the new student, but with a good

teacher, the dictionary and a little effort, easily

becomes accessible.

 

Foundations: An individual interpretation of

fundamental theory as learned and understood by him. A

highly respected clinician with some Chinese who

openly states that he does not believe that a

standardized terminology is possible and that he does

not feel it is necessary to gloss or explain his

terminological choices. Easy to read, but often

creates confusion among students.

 

CAM: Overly simplified CM theory that is " westernized "

in order to make it accessible. Probably the most

widely sold book on CM in this country - except maybe

the Web. (Bob Felt is this true?)

 

Granted my analyses may be biased (who are we kidding)

but I have no problem making a choice. Looked at from

this perspective I " m not really sure how anyone would.

Maybe it was not the book we learned from - but so

what. As clinicians and educators it behooves us to

continually raise our own standards so that our

students will be better than we are. Teaching is, in

fact, meant to be a fairly selfless act!

 

I am sure that I have not addressed all of the issues

that I wanted to address, but I have run out of time

- and probably lost most of my readers.

 

I wish to express my thanks to individuals like Bob

Felt, Bob Flaws and Nigel Wiseman who have put

themselves out there and opened themselves up to

criticism, who have taken the more difficult path and

are making a comittment to this medicine. I also wish

to again openly thank Dan Bensky, Steve Clavey and

Eric Stoger for the revised edition of the Materia

Medica. It is only by continuing to improve our work

that we will advance our profession.

 

Respectfully,

 

Marnae C. Ergil

 

 

 

---

wrote:

 

>

>

>

> >

> > bcataiji [bcaom]

> > Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:05 PM

> >

> > Re: Bensky compared with Chen &

> Chen

> >

> >

> >

> > , " Jason

> "

> > <@c...> wrote:

> > >

> >

> > > I get it... and am open to it... but I have yet

> to see any proof

> > that Bensky

> > > is missing the full understanding.. Do you have

> something to add that

> > > elucidates this point? Same with GHL's Warm

> disease Book, this is not a

> > > straight translation, it doesn't use WT... Does

> it lack something?

> > >

> > > -Jason

> >

> > In order to answer your question (and Eric alluded

> to this), we need

> > the exact Chinese hanzi that Bensky used to come

> up with a passage on

> > a particular herb. Then, that hanzi can be

> converted to Wiseman

> > terminology. Then, people can judge accordingly.

> [Jason]

> Brian,

>

> I find this quite interesting, and somewhat of a

> cop-out.. Yours (and

> eric's) stance is that we need some 'original

> Chinese' to compare Bensky to,

> to determine if it is actually simplified or not...

> Yet this (as Eric

> states) can't be done, although people are still

> willing to call it

> simplified... This is complete circular conjecture.

> There is no proof, so

> how can you know? And where does someone get off

> saying things without

> proof?

>

> I think Eric, Bob et al demonstrated that your

> 'release the exterior'

> example was not sufficient... Others?

>

> -

 

[Guest guest]

>

> bcataiji [bcaom]

> Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:04 PM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

>

> > how can you know? And where does someone get off saying things without

> > proof?

>

> I don't know. Did you give Eric his proof yet????

>

[Jason]

I did... but again this is a typical straw man... When I ask you too

substantiate your claim, you turn it around, change the subject and try to

put it on me / different topic... Typical...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> [Jason]

> I did... but again this is a typical straw man... When I ask you too

> substantiate your claim, you turn it around, change the subject and

try to

> put it on me / different topic... Typical...

>

> -Jason

 

My post which prompted Bob Flaw's post on the WT used for functions of

exterior resolving medicinals showed that the WT provided more

information and therefore more understanding.

 

This is now the 3rd time this is being said. What more do you want.

 

Also, you proved nothing to Eric. There is a different between saying

that a word is not in the PD, or that the CD dictionary does not have

a definition for a word, and your original claim that the definitions

in the PD for specific terms were not good enough in specific

instances that you come upon all of the time.

 

Furthermore, you spent so much time saying how obvious it was and that

you were not going to argue the point, taking up much type written

space, that it would have been much easier for you to provide the

specific WT from the PD which has a definition, where it appears in

one of your many passages of interest, and what you THINK it was

supposed to mean in that passage. Then we can look it up in the PD

and see the difference and decide for ourselves. Really, it had to

have been at least 8 posts of your saying the same thing over and over

and saying that you don't need to prove it, that it is obvious, etc.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> I did... but again this is a typical straw man... When I ask you too

> substantiate your claim, you turn it around, change the subject and

try to

> put it on me / different topic... Typical...

>

> -Jason

 

Even thought I already addressed this, let me explain it simply for

you so that you are sure to understand.

 

Ma Huang

 

a function in Bensky's new MM:

promotes urination and reduces edema

 

A student reading this and learning from this would be led to believe

that giving Ma Huang to someone will make them urinate.

 

a function in Bob Flaw's 260 Essential Chinese Medicinals:

disinhibits water and reduces swelling

 

A student reading this and learning from this would be led to believe

that giving Ma Huang to someone will have an effect on water if in

fact it is inhibited, rather than in any situation such as the general

(simplified) concept of promoting urination.

 

 

Therefore, because the WT in Flaw's book provides more detail, it

provides more understanding.

 

If you are unable to understand this, then please do not respond any

further on this thread.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

>

> marnae ergil [marnae]

>

> For example, last week we

> were discussing Substances that Regulate (Rectify) Qi.

> In the new edition, Bensky has begun to use the term

> " bulging " for shan4 (previously translated as hernia,

> and translated by Wiseman as mounting).

> Unfortunately, while I greatly prefer the term bulging

> to the term hernia, Bensky does not differentiate the

> 7 types of mounting/bulging, using simply the term

> bulging for all types (as far as I can see).

[Jason]

Marnae, First I want to say thanx for putting your input in on this

important subject, but what you say above I don't think is true... i.e.

looking at our friend Chuan Lian Zi Bensky, Clavey et al says " with... xiao

hui xiang and wu zhu yu for pain in association with COLD-type bulging

disorders " ... or " with yan hu suo for... pain from bulging disorders... due

to liver qi stagnation... "

Clearly he is differentiating... But even if he didn't you are comparing a

dictionary vs. a MM... I think we should be careful to compare apples and

oranges. I.e. the original texts may have not mentioned such

differentiates, and therefore a dictionary or anther source may have more

(differentiated) material. I don't see your (above) beef being about

translation of terms, or oversimplification because of terms - but about

more detailed information... Am I missing something?

 

 

>

> Jason, I believe it was you who brought up the topic

> of trusting an author/translator. This is a very, very

> difficult proposition.

Sticking solely to the issue

> of translation, what are the criteria that would be

> used to allow us to trust a translator. Is is

> clinical experience? How does one's clinical

> experience affect one's ability to read and translate

> Chinese? I know the argument - if the translator is

> not a clinician how can he/she expect to really

> understand what a book is talking about? Well, if a

> clinician decides to become a translator, is it not

> more likely that his/her clinical

> experience/viewpoints will shape his/her translation

> choices?

[Jason]

[Jason]

You are right, and I don't have a good answer, but I trust Dan & Steve... As

well as a handful of others...

 

Would it not be better for that clinician to

> either: 1) write a book that he/she clearly indicates

> is his/her perspective and to explain his/her

> qualifications for holding that perspective or 2) to

> translate a book using a standard terminology thereby

> removing his/her own experience as much as possible,

> but inserting commentary (a much revered tradition in

> China) into footnotes where appropriate? This allows

> the reader to know much more clearly what is

> translation and what is opinion/clinical experience.

> I would rather place my translation trust in someone

> who is well-grounded in the source language and also

> in the standards for translation and translation

> theory. Obviously, ideally this individual would work

> in a team or with a partner who is a clinician so as

> to clarify issues that might be obscure without a

> clinician's insight. The team of Feng Ye and Nigel

> Wiseman seems to me to fit this bill pretty perfectly.

[Jason]

I don't think anyone is arguing with this... I of course prefer sourced

terms and Wiseman is an easy & accurate solution... I don't think my

argument is about who is better or worse. It is not about what I think, or

you think, should be the best way to approach translation... I agree with

You, Eric, Bob, Bob, et al on this Wiseman translation issue... The

point is about the other side of the coin, and the claim that Chinese

Medicine cannot be sufficiently translated in this other manner. The claim

is that it over-simplifies things... Does it?? I am not sure. It can of

course like CAM, but is it possible that it doesn't have to... Remember we

are not talking about a vacuum.. meaning judging a book on its own, we have

to remember that we have the PD, as well as other sources... I still would

like to see more proof...

 

 

> Does this mean that I do not trust Bensky? No, but

> it does mean that I am more apt to question how

> interpretive his translation is and how much it is

> influenced by his own clinical experience. This is

> not a bad thing. It is simply something that I, as a

> reader, want to know.

[Jason]

That is a good point... IS it influenced by his clinical practice.. I would

say no, but a good question for Dan & Steve...

 

> I do not know how or why being an " academic " has

> become an insult in this field, but as a teacher, a

> scholar and a clinician I have no problem demanding

> the same type of rigor from my students. I expect

> them to have completed the required reading before

> coming to class and if they come to class and ask me

> what a word means - I will send them to the dictionary

> - a place they should have been before they came to

> class. We all feel free to gripe about the quality of

> our CM educations, but how many of us can really say

> that we went the extra mile or did the extra work to

> really understand what was being taught. Yes, it is

> incumbent on teachers to teach well but it is also

> incumbent on students to work well and to be prepared

> for class so that they do not need to be spoon fed.

> In the end, spending the extra five minutes it takes

> to look up a word will greatly enhance the student's

> understanding and, in the end, make them a better

> clinician.

[Jason] Agreed here...

 

>

> Translation in our field is still young. When I first

> translated Practical Diagnosis I had no idea what I

> was doing. I was someone who spoke Chinese, who had

> some understanding of Chinese medicine and who was

> willing to work hard for very little reward. Later,

> when working with Craig Mitchell, Michael Helme and

> Nigel on Jiao, I learned a lot about translation and

> looking back on Practical Diagnosis now, it is riddled

> with errors and odd language. I have even offered to

> do a revision but Churchill was not interested. So,

> as Bob Flaws said, to use some of the older

> translations using Wiseman terminology as examples of

> how it does not work is problematic. Yes, these books

> are out there, and they are examples of how this

> terminology can be misused.

[Jason]

I think that was my point (a while back) that you DO have to trust someone

on either end, and just using WT does not guarantee anything.. For Example,

I am a TA for a Translation class and of course we all use Wiseman Speak

(most of the time)... The Students papers are of course riddled with

misuse... As are most people... But I AM NOT SAYING that using connotative

or BEnsky Speak or whatever is some solution... IT just requires hard

work... And I have always supported using Wiseman as a foundation...

 

> I wish to express my thanks to individuals like Bob

> Felt, Bob Flaws and Nigel Wiseman who have put

> themselves out there and opened themselves up to

> criticism, who have taken the more difficult path and

> are making a comittment to this medicine. I also wish

> to again openly thank Dan Bensky, Steve Clavey and

> Eric Stoger for the revised edition of the Materia

> Medica. It is only by continuing to improve our work

> that we will advance our profession.

[Jason]

3 cheers to that!

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

>

> bcataiji [bcaom]

> Thursday, October 28, 2004 3:06 PM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

>

> > [Jason]

> > I did... but again this is a typical straw man... When I ask you too

> > substantiate your claim, you turn it around, change the subject and

> try to

> > put it on me / different topic... Typical...

> >

> > -Jason

>

> My post which prompted Bob Flaw's post on the WT used for functions of

> exterior resolving medicinals showed that the WT provided more

> information and therefore more understanding.

>

> This is now the 3rd time this is being said. What more do you want.

>

> Also, you proved nothing to Eric. There is a different between saying

> that a word is not in the PD, or that the CD dictionary does not have

> a definition for a word, and your original claim that the definitions

> in the PD for specific terms were not good enough in specific

> instances that you come upon all of the time.

[Jason]

No, you must have missed the post... I gave a clear instance from the

wenrelun, you can check it out if you like...

 

>

> Furthermore, you spent so much time saying how obvious it was and that

> you were not going to argue the point, taking up much type written

> space,

[Jason]

Of course I did, because Z'ev, eric, and even Nigel (later) admits that

there are limitations, like I said why do I need to prove the earth is round

when everyone agrees... The only reason I finally did post it is because

Nigel Chimed in.... You probably have no ability to even judge the examples

for yourself... You do not have the skills...

 

that it would have been much easier for you to provide the

> specific WT from the PD which has a definition,

[Jason]

The wenrelun example is not even in the PD - That is 1/2 the point!

 

where it appears in

> one of your many passages of interest, and what you THINK it was

> supposed to mean in that passage.

[Jason]

I will make this simple, b/c I see your skill set is low... IF you check the

pegged term in the green (Wiseman) book or e-file you get what it is says...

You then read the wenrelun passage in CHINESE and see if it fits.. It is

real obvious that it is off... I feel no need to hold your hand, and if you

really care you can look stuff up... but again I find it surprising that you

even entertain the idea that there are no exceptions to the rule.

 

Then we can look it up in the PD

> and see the difference and decide for ourselves. Really, it had to

> have been at least 8 posts of your saying the same thing over and over

> and saying that you don't need to prove it, that it is obvious, etc.

[Jason]

YES YES YES - because you have to have the context in Chinese to evaluate

it.. come on... that is why I kept saying it is not appropriate for the

forum... This is like a bunch of monkeys trying to screw in a light bulb...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

>

> bcataiji [bcaom]

> Thursday, October 28, 2004 3:17 PM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

>

> > I did... but again this is a typical straw man... When I ask you too

> > substantiate your claim, you turn it around, change the subject and

> try to

> > put it on me / different topic... Typical...

> >

> > -Jason

>

> Even thought I already addressed this, let me explain it simply for

> you so that you are sure to understand.

>

> Ma Huang

>

> a function in Bensky's new MM:

> promotes urination and reduces edema

>

> A student reading this and learning from this would be led to believe

> that giving Ma Huang to someone will make them urinate.

>

> a function in Bob Flaw's 260 Essential Chinese Medicinals:

> disinhibits water and reduces swelling

>

> A student reading this and learning from this would be led to believe

> that giving Ma Huang to someone will have an effect on water if in

> fact it is inhibited, rather than in any situation such as the general

> (simplified) concept of promoting urination.

>

>

> Therefore, because the WT in Flaw's book provides more detail, it

> provides more understanding.

>

> If you are unable to understand this, then please do not respond any

> further on this thread.

[Jason]

So you are saying if I don't agree with you then I shouldn't respond?

Well I don't agree...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> when everyone agrees... The only reason I finally did post it is because

> Nigel Chimed in.... You probably have no ability to even judge the

examples

> for yourself... You do not have the skills...

 

You are quite entertaining here, Jason, but wrong. In my

undergraduate studies, I minored in East Asian Studies & Chinese

Language, so Chinese language, speaking it, reading, and writing it,

is not a mystery to me. Also, while at PCOM, I've been teaching

myself medical Chinese little by little, and have translated small

tidbits of things for myself when I felt the need.

 

My skills are no less than yours when you decided to start translating.

 

Furthermore, my skills, and to that matter, whether or not I even

exist, has no bearing on whether or not you are wrong or not.

 

>

> that it would have been much easier for you to provide the

> > specific WT from the PD which has a definition,

> [Jason]

> The wenrelun example is not even in the PD - That is 1/2 the point!

 

Eric kept asking you to provide an example where the definition in the

PD did not fit. You provided an example of a word where there was no

definition. So, you proved nothing.

 

 

> [Jason]

> I will make this simple, b/c I see your skill set is low... IF you

 

Which skill set? And why are you getting personal? You don't see me

bringing in information about your " skill set " as relayed to me by one

of the girls you dated at PCOM? Keep to the point and don't embarrass

yourself.

 

 

> [Jason]

> YES YES YES - because you have to have the context in Chinese to

evaluate

> it.. come on... that is why I kept saying it is not appropriate for the

> forum... This is like a bunch of monkeys trying to screw in a light

bulb...

>

> -Jason

 

If it were really not appropriate for the forum, would have

put an end to the topic and not allow the posts to continue.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> > If you are unable to understand this, then please do not respond any

> > further on this thread.

> [Jason]

> So you are saying if I don't agree with you then I shouldn't respond?

> Well I don't agree...

>

> -Jason

 

How did you twist the word " understand " into the word " agree " ?

 

Anyway, if you do not agree, sure, respond. But, and maybe I am

wrong, you did ask how WT could provide more understanding about an

herb than the Bensky terminology does in his new MM. I responded and

showed that I got more understanding from Flaw's MM with the WT than I

did from the Bensky book.

 

You cannot disagree that I understood more from Flaw's, you can only

realistically comment on your own understanding or the understanding

of other reported to you.

 

Brian C. Allen