Otis Brown Log 2 February

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

LarryDoc - 03 Feb 2005 03:22 GMT

After nearly two weeks of virtual absence, Otis Brown has re-surfaced.
Fortunately, only to dialog with Rishi/Gatti---the only other person in
this group that might possible read his garbage. Comic relief?

No, wasted internet bandwidth and server storage.

For the rest of us who wish to engage in discussion of the science and
medicine of vision, please remember to not reply to either of the trolls.

Someone wrote me and asked why I did not post Gatti Logs and the answer
is simple. No one takes Rishi/Gatti even a little bit seriously. His
posts are so bizarre that there is simply to reason to address him at
all. Brown, on the other hand, might possibly fool newcomers, at least
for a short while. Then they figure out that his posts are garbage, of
absolutely no value and have no place in this newsgroup.

Reply to this Message

otisbrown@pa.net - 03 Feb 2005 04:40 GMT

Hello:

Subject: Only one opnion allowed.

Larry has this concept that the
standard method put in place
(because of immediate "need")
has some "sweeping" justifiction
in science.

There is "opposition" to the
over-prescription of the minus
lens -- internal to his own
profession -- and Larry is
well aware of that truth.

For his part -- I acknowledge
that perhaps the majority
of the population only want
that "quick-fix" provided by
that minus lens. And Larry
can justify the use of the
minus lens on that basis
alone.

But we are here to learn more -- and
yes -- even embedded mistakes
of the past -- however wide spread
they might be.

I pose a basic question -- is
the natural eye dynamic.

And for this reason -- Larry,
who wants to believe that
the natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC
must post endless "blasts"
against that scientific statement.

I hold my hand out in friendship
to Larry and all on sci.med.vision
so that we might have an
enjoyable discussion about
abstract concepts and
scientific proof.

I regret that Larry has
such a "closed mind"
on what could be an
enjoyable discussion of
techical fact.

Others talk of "free speech",
and that is what we are doing
on this site.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

Reply to this Message

RM - 03 Feb 2005 13:03 GMT

This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread
that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
"otisbrown@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer".

Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is
unproven.

In addition, Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the
names of doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been
caught in out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise.
Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel
him to argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument.

Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not
reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that
should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick
psychological needs.

No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is
only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained
eyecare expert.

For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of
scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following
link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf. If you have other topics
you wish to discuss, there are experts here who will usually help you.
Don't waste your time with Otis.

Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually
appears on Mondays, for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that
you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum.

> Hello:
> Best,

snip the usual BS phrases and nonsense

> Otis
> Engineer

Reply to this Message

Dan Abel - 03 Feb 2005 17:48 GMT

> I pose a basic question -- is
> the natural eye dynamic.

And the answer is yes, which everybody, including the ODs here, has agreed to.

> And for this reason -- Larry,
> who wants to believe that
> the natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC
> must post endless "blasts"
> against that scientific statement.

That's simply not true. The only concept that gets blasted is the one
that putting minus lenses on adult myopes makes them more myopic, and
putting plus lenses on adult myopes makes them less myopic.

Signature

Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net

Reply to this Message

Scott Seidman - 03 Feb 2005 17:54 GMT

dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote in news:dabel-0302050948210001@ssu-
64en129.sonoma.edu:

> That's simply not true. The only concept that gets blasted is the one
> that putting minus lenses on adult myopes makes them more myopic, and
> putting plus lenses on adult myopes makes them less myopic.

You've "hit" this nail on
the "head". Otis "wraps" his ideas
around a truism, and "then" when
you criticize "his" "ideas", he makes
"believe" that you're "criticising"
"the" truism.

Scott

cc:     William Shatner
          John Lithgow
          Dennis Hopper
          Ghost of Abby Hoffman

Reply to this Message

Dr. Leukoma - 03 Feb 2005 22:41 GMT

> dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote in news:dabel-0302050948210001@ssu-
> 64en129.sonoma.edu:
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Dennis Hopper
> Ghost of Abby Hoffman

ROFL

DrG

cc: Albert Einstein
Galileo
Louis Pasteur
and other kindred spirits

Reply to this Message