Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
3,587
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 22:
Line 22: + +
no edit summary
: I don't want to revert - however, what I am saying is not contradicted by the above definitions. In fact, it is supported by them. Especially the acupuncture.com.au source (although it's not really academic, it is correct.) No one thing is completely yang or yin, and things are yin or yang in relation to one another. I'll change that section alone at some point, and keep the T in Taoism rather than the D if you like, but currently, calling one thing yin and another yang, as the article says at the moment, is not the real theory, it's just a common corruption. Even in China, actually. I suppose that should be mentioned. Anyway, yes, the goal is the same. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 14:47, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
: I don't want to revert - however, what I am saying is not contradicted by the above definitions. In fact, it is supported by them. Especially the acupuncture.com.au source (although it's not really academic, it is correct.) No one thing is completely yang or yin, and things are yin or yang in relation to one another. I'll change that section alone at some point, and keep the T in Taoism rather than the D if you like, but currently, calling one thing yin and another yang, as the article says at the moment, is not the real theory, it's just a common corruption. Even in China, actually. I suppose that should be mentioned. Anyway, yes, the goal is the same. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 14:47, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:: Ok, if you feel it could be improved, please do. I changed it back because honestly, I found the previous version to be confusing, and was attempting to make a very clear and understandable definition geared towards the average person (like myself) without extensive knowledge of the subject. Thanks for your input! --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:30, 4 June 2007 (EDT)