 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2005WHY? and Goodbye
I just can't figure out which of you does more damage to this newsgroup; the absurd zealots Otis, Rishi/Evaristo or those of you who reply to their nonsense. Are you having fun? If you are, you do so at the expense of those who come here with real issues to discuss and who desire real, scientific/medical replies. Not silly useless crap. I'll check back next month, perhaps. Or not. Try to figure out if you'd like to be part of the problem or part of the solution, because right now, you're just as much of a detriment to this group as the people you criticize. Remember, this is SCI MED Vision, not the blind leading the blind. --LB, O.D. > I just can't figure out which of you does more damage to this newsgroup; > the absurd zealots Otis, Rishi/Evaristo or those of you who reply to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > --LB, O.D. Ever hear of kill file? Dear Larry, Subject: The second opinion While you strongly express the "majority opinion". it is largly based on the fact that the minus lens works "instantly". I understand the "power" of doing that. Equally, hoever, the fact that the natural eye "moves negative" as a matter of direct-science should be a concern of all of us. Indeed, the second-opinion, while difficult, is offered by some optometrists -- despite your denial. We should all keep an open mind about the question of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye -- that is indeed a scientific (not medical) question. No on is "pressuring" you to answer these discussions. If you don't like them -- then just do not respond. I remind you that this is an "open" forum, and people from all walks of life are free to post here. Bev posts a statement to this effect on a weekly basis. The reader if free to review the various issues and reach HIS OWN CONCLUSION. Best, Otis Engineer More of the same blah blah from Otis who likes the sound of his own prose. And so: 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. > Dear Larry, > Subject: The second opinion blah > Equally, hoever, the fact that > the natural eye "moves negative" > as a matter of direct-science should more tired old blah blah > the question of the dynamic nature > of the fundamental eye -- that is > indeed a scientific (not medical) > question. blah and more blah > Best, > > Otis > Engineer I understand what you are saying. But honestly, don't you think you have some kind of control-freak problem? You are constantly trying to get everyone to treat Otis and Rishi the way YOU think they should be treated. Just like Mark A says, kill file them so YOU won't have to see their crap and let everyone else deal with them the way they want to. A little defensive you all are, eh? Within minutes of my post, you're there trying to explain away The Why. Sure, I can (and do) kill file, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing how YOU contribute to the nonsense, or that, sometimes, those "characters", with the addition of you who reply to them contribute to 75-80% of the traffic on this group. Some days, 100%. That's not fair to those who come here to discuss real, appropriate issues. But I digress. Control-freak? I have no desire to control anything. If you want to have this group become a source of continual bull sh.t, be my guest. I prefer to not engage them or even this discussion. As it is your prerogative to do as you wish, that choice means that I and perhaps my colleagues go away. Many already have and I suspect the rest of us are so inclined. It may not concern you, but it does me when someone with a real, potentially serious problem is told to stare at the sun, that he/she caused the problem because they're an idiot, they need to want "the plus", that I'm a criminal, or other nonsense. I find that offensive. Very offensive. As I said, be part of the problem or the solution. Just think about the consequences of your actions. Me, I'm done. That includes this thread. LB Cool off Larry. As you say "A little defensive aren't you?" Now take your ball and go home. Dear Larry, Rishi indeed makes incredible, and insulting statements. But I submit that I have not. I simply stated that if you take a population of eyes (natural, adolescent, primate) and place a mild minus lens on 1/2 of them, (say -3 diopters) then, by direct measurement, you will find that the REFRACTIVE status will have changed in the direction and approximate magnitude of the applied -3 diopter lens. That is a repeatable, scientific experiment. It is not, however, a "medical" experiment. If a person reading this chooses ot NOT BELIEVE this results -- he is entirely free to believe the opposite, that the refractive state of the natural eye does not behave in this manner. If fact there is an optometry field called "behaviorial optometry", and they should certainly respect THAT kind of scientific experiment. If you take "insult" from that type of science, then I would be at a loss to understand why. Best, Otis Engineer It may not concern you, but it does me when someone with a real, potentially serious problem is told to stare at the sun, Otis> I NEVER said anything like that -- and I think it is a very bad idea -- indeed. that he/she caused the problem because they're an idiot, Otis> I NEVER made that statement either. I suggest they read the statement by Dr. Stirling Cogate (scientist -- not medical) about his judgment on the use of the plus for prevention. they need to want "the plus", Otis> The plus would be used ONLY after the person reviewed the explicit experimental facts stated above. If he chooses to NOT wear the plus at the -1/2 diopter level -- then that is no skin off my nose. that I'm a criminal, or other nonsense. Otis> Again -- I NEVER said anything of that nature. I just stated that prevention with the plus should be DISCUSSED with a person BEFORE a minus lens is used. He should have a chance to review the various issues, with an understanding that effective use of the plus -- must be started before the minus is applied. I find that offensive. Very offensive. Otis> These are Rishi's comments -- not mine. As I said, be part of the problem or the solution. Just think about the consequences of your actions. Me, I'm done. That includes this thread. Otis> Indeed, the optometrists who are working FOR prevention say the same thing -- that if you are not part of the solution (by use of the plus) then you are going to become part of the problem. Otis> But I always hold out my hand in friendship and keep my language temperate -- unless insulted. Best, Otis LB > A little defensive you all are, eh? Within minutes of my post, you're > there trying to explain away The Why. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > LB Yes I find it offensive also, but I have kill filed most of the people who post this junk. I normally only read and answer stuff related to lens products, so I don't really care about the other stuff. As someone who is an educated consumer, rather than a professional in the eye care business, I can tell you that I doubt seriously that most consumers read the stuff that you find offensive anyway. Those who do read it, I assume are smart enough to know better. >As I said, be part of the problem or the solution. Just think about the >consequences of your actions. Me, I'm done. That includes this thread. Larry, I don't know if your are still reading this but just in case... Yes I hear you, and I thought about this very problem before I posted. Nevertheless, I thought that someone should spell out in detail exactly what is wrong with their philosophy. The "cult" phenomenon is well known (at least to the people who study it objectively) and it extends to other things besides just Bates and eye care. My posts were not just for Rishi and Evaristo, but for the others who perhaps are "on the fence" and may possibly get drawn into this cult. As for newsgroup traffic, well, if you want to see traffic try looking at misc.invest.stocks, with hundreds of posts per day and most of them are totally useless. The traffic here is very small and it should be easy for someone to ignore whatever posts they want to. I have always looked forward to reading your posts and your advice is always worth listening to. It would be a shame if you really left because of a little thing like this. > I just can't figure out which of you does more damage to this newsgroup; > the absurd zealots Otis, Rishi/Evaristo or those of you who reply to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > --LB, O.D. Larry, I understand what you're saying- that's the reason I rarely post here anymore. No one will ever be able to convince a fanatic such as Otis and the dimwit duo but I don't mind those who challenge and show how foolish these guys are. I just totally ignore Otis's posts anyway. Have a great weekend- hope all is well with your practice and personal life. frank > Larry, > I understand what you're saying- that's the reason I rarely post here [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > frank You continue to cheat people, I will continue to cheat people in another way. What is the difference? Understood. Myopia prevention is a valid subject for scientific and medical discussion. In fact, one might say that it is the "holy grail." Fortunately, one of these absurd zealots is quite easy to spot and will no doubt be dismissed by all but a very few who read this NG. On the other hand, Otis dresses up his absurd nonsense with a bit of science -- most of it old and outdated -- but science, nevertheless. Quite probably there are enough members of our own profession who still cling to these ideas to keep them alive. However, I do agree with you that when we eye care professionals and visual scientists engage him in debate, it does serve to give his arguments the credibility they do not deserve -- at least in his eyes. In fact, this is exactly what he wants. The reason I say this is because he once baited me by sending me an email, and then took pieces of my reply out of context to make is appear that I supported his arguments in this NG. From that moment it was very apparent to me what Otis is about. I do agree with you that, as a rule, it is far better to ignore him and let the readers make up their own minds. DrG > I just can't figure out which of you does more damage to this newsgroup; > the absurd zealots Otis, Rishi/Evaristo or those of you who reply to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > --LB, O.D. You speak as if you have found a cure for imperfect sight. >I just can't figure out which of you does more damage to this newsgroup; >the absurd zealots Otis, Rishi/Evaristo or those of you who reply to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >--LB, O.D. GOOD BYE ! -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.