[009]
216.99.32.45
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \'\'phlegmatic\'\' says that it\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \
to:
I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out of place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.\\\\\\\\
I saw on Eripedia, apparently a sub-site of Wordpress.com, that it was \\\"Eric B\\\" who coined the word \\\"leukine\\\" for a temperament, not on here, but on mindtweaks and INTPCentral, both on which he mentions that \\\"leukine\\\" resolves the \\\"S\\\" dilemma (so that only \\\'\\\'\\\'one\\\'\\\'\\\' is initialized \\\'\\\'\\\'S\\\'\\\'\\\').
* It is mentioned on Eripedia that he has no idea how that word \\\"leukine\\\" ended up here on TV Tropes. From \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' I take it that he, when renaming \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' with a sound-alike, was intending on positioning \\\"leukine\\\" right where \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' is, \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' in the center where TvTropes (re)positioned it.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out of place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.\\\\\\\\
I saw on Eripedia, apparently a sub-site of Wordpress.com, that it was \\\"Eric B\\\" who coined the word \\\"leukine\\\" for a temperament, not on here, but on mindtweaks and INTPCentral, both on which he mentions that \\\"leukine\\\" resolves the \\\"S\\\" dilemma (so that only \\\'\\\'\\\'one\\\'\\\'\\\' is initialized \\\'\\\'\\\'S\\\'\\\'\\\').
* It is mentioned on Eripedia that he has no idea how that word \\\"leukine\\\" ended up here on TV Tropes. From \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' I take it that he, when renaming \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' with a sound-alike, was intending on positioning \\\"leukine\\\" right where \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' is, \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' in the center where TvTropes (re)positioned it.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \'\'phlegmatic\'\' says that it\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \
to:
I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.\\\\\\\\
I saw on Eripedia, apparently a sub-site of Wordpress.com, that it was \\\"Eric B\\\" who coined the word \\\"leukine\\\" for a temperament, not on here, but on mindtweaks and INTPCentral, both on which he mentions that \\\"leukine\\\" resolves the \\\"S\\\" dilemma (so that only \\\'\\\'\\\'one\\\'\\\'\\\' is initialized \\\'\\\'\\\'S\\\'\\\'\\\').
* It is mentioned on Eripedia that he has no idea how that word \\\"leukine\\\" ended up here on TV Tropes. From \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' I take it that he, when renaming \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' with a sound-alike, was intending on positioning \\\"leukine\\\" right where \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' is, \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' in the center where TvTropes (re)positioned it.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.\\\\\\\\
I saw on Eripedia, apparently a sub-site of Wordpress.com, that it was \\\"Eric B\\\" who coined the word \\\"leukine\\\" for a temperament, not on here, but on mindtweaks and INTPCentral, both on which he mentions that \\\"leukine\\\" resolves the \\\"S\\\" dilemma (so that only \\\'\\\'\\\'one\\\'\\\'\\\' is initialized \\\'\\\'\\\'S\\\'\\\'\\\').
* It is mentioned on Eripedia that he has no idea how that word \\\"leukine\\\" ended up here on TV Tropes. From \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' I take it that he, when renaming \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' with a sound-alike, was intending on positioning \\\"leukine\\\" right where \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' is, \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' in the center where TvTropes (re)positioned it.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \'\'phlegmatic\'\' says that it\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \
to:
I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.\\\\\\\\
I saw on Eripedia, apparently a sub-site of Wordpress.com, that it was \\\"Eric B\\\" who coined the word \\\"leukine\\\" for a temperament, not on here, but on mindtweaks and INTPCentral, both on which he mentions that \\\"leukine\\\" resolves the \\\"S\\\" dilemma (so that only \\\'\\\'\\\'one\\\'\\\'\\\' is initialized \\\'\\\'\\\'S\\\'\\\'\\\').
* It is mentioned on Eripedia that he has no idea how that word \\\"leukine\\\" ended up here on TV Tropes. From \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' I take it that he, when renaming \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' with a sound-alike, was attempting to position \\\"leukine\\\" right where \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' is, \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' in the center where TV Tropes (re)positioned it.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.\\\\\\\\
I saw on Eripedia, apparently a sub-site of Wordpress.com, that it was \\\"Eric B\\\" who coined the word \\\"leukine\\\" for a temperament, not on here, but on mindtweaks and INTPCentral, both on which he mentions that \\\"leukine\\\" resolves the \\\"S\\\" dilemma (so that only \\\'\\\'\\\'one\\\'\\\'\\\' is initialized \\\'\\\'\\\'S\\\'\\\'\\\').
* It is mentioned on Eripedia that he has no idea how that word \\\"leukine\\\" ended up here on TV Tropes. From \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' I take it that he, when renaming \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' with a sound-alike, was attempting to position \\\"leukine\\\" right where \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' is, \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' in the center where TV Tropes (re)positioned it.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \'\'phlegmatic\'\' says that it\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \
to:
I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.\\\\\\\\
I saw on Eripedia, apparently a sub-site of Wordpress.com, that the one who coined the word \\\"leukine\\\" for a temperament (his name \\\"Eric B\\\", I think) did so not on here, but on mindtweaks and INTPCentral, both on which he mentions that \\\"leukine\\\" resolves the \\\"S\\\" dilemma (so that only \\\'\\\'\\\'one\\\'\\\'\\\' is initialized \\\'\\\'\\\'S\\\'\\\'\\\').
* It is mentioned on Eripedia that he has no idea how that word \\\"leukine\\\" ended up here on TV Tropes. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\'\\\' apparent that he, when renaming \\\"supine\\\" with a sound-alike, was attempting to position \\\"leukine\\\" right where \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' is, \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' in the center where TV Tropes (re)positioned it.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.\\\\\\\\
I saw on Eripedia, apparently a sub-site of Wordpress.com, that the one who coined the word \\\"leukine\\\" for a temperament (his name \\\"Eric B\\\", I think) did so not on here, but on mindtweaks and INTPCentral, both on which he mentions that \\\"leukine\\\" resolves the \\\"S\\\" dilemma (so that only \\\'\\\'\\\'one\\\'\\\'\\\' is initialized \\\'\\\'\\\'S\\\'\\\'\\\').
* It is mentioned on Eripedia that he has no idea how that word \\\"leukine\\\" ended up here on TV Tropes. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\'\\\' apparent that he, when renaming \\\"supine\\\" with a sound-alike, was attempting to position \\\"leukine\\\" right where \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' is, \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' in the center where TV Tropes (re)positioned it.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Examples are \'\'\'not always\'\' exact matches for the pages of their directing. \
to:
I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.
I saw on Eripedia, apparently a sub-site of Wordpress.com, that the one who coined the word \\\"leukine\\\" for a temperament (his name \\\"Eric B\\\", I think) did so not on here, but on mindtweaks and INTPCentral, both on which he mentions that \\\"leukine\\\" resolves the \\\"S\\\" dilemma (so that only \\\'\\\'\\\'one\\\'\\\'\\\' is initialized \\\'\\\'\\\'S\\\'\\\'\\\').
* It is mentioned on Eripedia that he has no idea how that word \\\"leukine\\\" ended up here on TV Tropes. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\'\\\' apparent that he, when renaming \\\"supine\\\" with a sound-alike, was attempting to position \\\"leukine\\\" right where \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' is, \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' in the center where TV Tropes (re)positioned it.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.
I saw on Eripedia, apparently a sub-site of Wordpress.com, that the one who coined the word \\\"leukine\\\" for a temperament (his name \\\"Eric B\\\", I think) did so not on here, but on mindtweaks and INTPCentral, both on which he mentions that \\\"leukine\\\" resolves the \\\"S\\\" dilemma (so that only \\\'\\\'\\\'one\\\'\\\'\\\' is initialized \\\'\\\'\\\'S\\\'\\\'\\\').
* It is mentioned on Eripedia that he has no idea how that word \\\"leukine\\\" ended up here on TV Tropes. It\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\'\\\' apparent that he, when renaming \\\"supine\\\" with a sound-alike, was attempting to position \\\"leukine\\\" right where \\\'\\\'supine\\\'\\\' is, \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' in the center where TV Tropes (re)positioned it.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Examples are \'\'\'not always\'\' exact matches for the pages of their directing. \
to:
Examples are \\\'\\\'\\\'not always\\\'\\\' exact matches for the pages of their directing. \\\"\\\'\\\'Wear heart on sleeve\\\'\\\'\\\" directs to the DramaQueen page, but that doesn\\\'t mean \\\"heart worn on sleeve\\\" \\\'\\\'always\\\'\\\' makes someone a Drama King/Queen.
* It\\\'s true that 4 does not equal 5. I don\\\'t believe that any examples given is any attempt at making 4 and 5 equal. The fifth temperament (whether called \\\"leukine\\\" or \\\"phlegmatic\\\" on other models) is treated as an optional temperament. Some stories \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' that one; some \\\'\\\'don\\\'t\\\'\\\'. Ensemble of 4 or ensemble of 5 -- it\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' a balanced ensemble. I think an ensemble of 5 is preferable over one of 4 that\\\'s missing an \\\"opposite\\\" (using the \\\'\\\'middle\\\'\\\' temp instead), because if one of the four has no \\\"opposite\\\", that\\\'ll make the ensemble lopsided. A lopsided ensemble has been completed by a temporary or secondary character included and/or a new character introduced, which I find acceptable -- long as the ensemble is completed.
Also, I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.
* It\\\'s true that 4 does not equal 5. I don\\\'t believe that any examples given is any attempt at making 4 and 5 equal. The fifth temperament (whether called \\\"leukine\\\" or \\\"phlegmatic\\\" on other models) is treated as an optional temperament. Some stories \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' that one; some \\\'\\\'don\\\'t\\\'\\\'. Ensemble of 4 or ensemble of 5 -- it\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' a balanced ensemble. I think an ensemble of 5 is preferable over one of 4 that\\\'s missing an \\\"opposite\\\" (using the \\\'\\\'middle\\\'\\\' temp instead), because if one of the four has no \\\"opposite\\\", that\\\'ll make the ensemble lopsided. A lopsided ensemble has been completed by a temporary or secondary character included and/or a new character introduced, which I find acceptable -- long as the ensemble is completed.
Also, I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. So it doesn\\\'t really seem to make a difference which model we follow, old or new.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Examples are \'\'\'not always\'\' exact matches for the pages of their directing. \
to:
Examples are \\\'\\\'\\\'not always\\\'\\\' exact matches for the pages of their directing. \\\"\\\'\\\'Wear heart on sleeve\\\'\\\'\\\" directs to the DramaQueen page, but that doesn\\\'t mean \\\"heart worn on sleeve\\\" \\\'\\\'always\\\'\\\' makes someone a Drama King/Queen.
* It\\\'s true that 4 does not equal 5. I don\\\'t believe that any examples given is any attempt at making 4 and 5 equal. The fifth temperament (whether called \\\"leukine\\\" or \\\"phlegmatic\\\" on other models) is treated as an optional temperament. Some stories \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' that one; some \\\'\\\'don\\\'t\\\'\\\'. Ensemble of 4 or ensemble of 5 -- it\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' a balanced ensemble. I think an ensemble of 5 is preferable over one of 4 that\\\'s missing an \\\"opposite\\\" (using the \\\'\\\'middle\\\'\\\' temp instead), because if one of the four has no \\\"opposite\\\", that\\\'ll make the ensemble lopsided. A lopsided ensemble has been completed by a temporary or secondary character included and/or a new character introduced, which I find acceptable -- long as the ensemble is completed.
Also, I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. I think it could go either way.
* It\\\'s true that 4 does not equal 5. I don\\\'t believe that any examples given is any attempt at making 4 and 5 equal. The fifth temperament (whether called \\\"leukine\\\" or \\\"phlegmatic\\\" on other models) is treated as an optional temperament. Some stories \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' that one; some \\\'\\\'don\\\'t\\\'\\\'. Ensemble of 4 or ensemble of 5 -- it\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' a balanced ensemble. I think an ensemble of 5 is preferable over one of 4 that\\\'s missing an \\\"opposite\\\" (using the \\\'\\\'middle\\\'\\\' temp instead), because if one of the four has no \\\"opposite\\\", that\\\'ll make the ensemble lopsided. A lopsided ensemble has been completed by a temporary or secondary character included and/or a new character introduced, which I find acceptable -- long as the ensemble is completed.
Also, I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. I think it could go either way.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Examples are \'\'\'not always\'\' exact matches for the pages of their directing. \
to:
Examples are \\\'\\\'\\\'not always\\\'\\\' exact matches for the pages of their directing. \\\"\\\'\\\'Wear heart on sleeve\\\'\\\'\\\" directs to the DramaQueen page, but that doesn\\\'t mean \\\"heart worn on sleeve\\\" \\\'\\\'always\\\'\\\' makes someone a Drama King/Queen.
* It\\\'s true that 4 does not equal 5. I don\\\'t believe that any examples given is any attempt at making 4 and 5 equal. The fifth temperament (whether called \\\"leukine\\\" or \\\"phlegmatic\\\" on other models) is treated as an optional temperament. Some stories \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' that one; some \\\'\\\'don\\\'t\\\'\\\'. Ensemble of 4 or ensemble of 5 -- it\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' a balanced ensemble. I think an ensemble of 5 is preferable over one of 4 that\\\'s missing an \\\"opposite\\\" (using the \\\'\\\'middle\\\'\\\' temp instead), because if one of the four has no \\\"opposite\\\", that\\\'ll make the ensemble lopsided.
Also, I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. I think it could go either way.
* It\\\'s true that 4 does not equal 5. I don\\\'t believe that any examples given is any attempt at making 4 and 5 equal. The fifth temperament (whether called \\\"leukine\\\" or \\\"phlegmatic\\\" on other models) is treated as an optional temperament. Some stories \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' that one; some \\\'\\\'don\\\'t\\\'\\\'. Ensemble of 4 or ensemble of 5 -- it\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' a balanced ensemble. I think an ensemble of 5 is preferable over one of 4 that\\\'s missing an \\\"opposite\\\" (using the \\\'\\\'middle\\\'\\\' temp instead), because if one of the four has no \\\"opposite\\\", that\\\'ll make the ensemble lopsided.
Also, I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\'\\\'unusual\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'out pf place\\\'\\\' either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. I think it could go either way.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Examples are \'\'\'not always\'\' exact matches for the pages of their directing. \
to:
Examples are \\\'\\\'\\\'not always\\\'\\\' exact matches for the pages of their directing. \\\"\\\'\\\'Wear heart on sleeve\\\'\\\'\\\" directs to the DramaQueen page, but that doesn\\\'t mean \\\"heart worn on sleeve\\\" \\\'\\\'always\\\'\\\' makes someone a Drama King/Queen.
* It\\\'s true that 4 does not equal 5. I don\\\'t believe that any examples given is any attempt at making 4 and 5 equal. The fifth temperament (whether called \\\"leukine\\\" or \\\"phlegmatic\\\" on other models) is treated as an optional temperament. Some stories \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' that one; some \\\'\\\'don\\\'t\\\'\\\'. Ensemble of 4 or ensemble of 5 -- it\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' a balanced ensemble. I think an ensemble of 5 is preferable over one of 4 that\\\'s missing an \\\"opposite\\\" (using the \\\'\\\'middle\\\'\\\' temp instead), because if one of the four has no \\\"opposite\\\", that\\\'ll make the ensemble lopsided.
Also, I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\"unusual\\\" either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. I think it could go either way.
* It\\\'s true that 4 does not equal 5. I don\\\'t believe that any examples given is any attempt at making 4 and 5 equal. The fifth temperament (whether called \\\"leukine\\\" or \\\"phlegmatic\\\" on other models) is treated as an optional temperament. Some stories \\\'\\\'have\\\'\\\' that one; some \\\'\\\'don\\\'t\\\'\\\'. Ensemble of 4 or ensemble of 5 -- it\\\'s \\\'\\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\'\\\' a balanced ensemble. I think an ensemble of 5 is preferable over one of 4 that\\\'s missing an \\\"opposite\\\" (using the \\\'\\\'middle\\\'\\\' temp instead), because if one of the four has no \\\"opposite\\\", that\\\'ll make the ensemble lopsided.
Also, I understand about the four temps and their original names being preserved being what lots of people are used to. But the dictionary definition of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' says that it\\\'s a stolidly calm, unemotional disposition. Some dictionaries include \\\"sluggish\\\" and \\\"apathetic\\\" as well, but for the most part, they seem to imply \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as being well-balanced.
* \\\'\\\'Phlegmatic\\\'\\\' has, in definition, already drifted away from being choleric\\\'s \\\"supine opposite\\\" (assuming it ever has been in the \\\'\\\'first\\\'\\\' place). Though I don\\\'t imagine crowds would be ready to settle on \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' as the central temperament yet, bear in mind (though I could be wrong) it seems unlikely that the accepted meaning of \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\' should back-track anytime soon.
** I fancy, for instance, that worry and neurosis (things opposite to choleric) will continue to be seen as rather \\\'\\\'\\\'odd\\\'\\\'\\\' in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\'.
So in defining \\\'\\\'phlegmatic\\\'\\\', given the dictionary definition, something will easily seem \\\"unusual\\\" either way, whether it\\\'s opposite \\\'\\\'choleric\\\'\\\' or sitting in the center. I think it could go either way.
