 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2005Enough is enough...
Can we please stop the Otis bashing. I am a lurker that reads the group on a regular basis. When I went to the messages today, most of them were Otis etc. bashing. Now Otis, don't get me wrong; I kill-filed you a long time ago. But I still come to this group and get a ton of traffic unrelated to vision. I understand that, until Otis voluntarily includes a disclaimer, someone will have to post one for him. But that is all that is needed, the rest is just troll food. Dear Ken, Subject: Posting scientific reviews -- and the second opinion. No one need respond to anything I post. I have been very clear about the proven effect that a minus lens has on the natural eye. The ODs can state that the do not have "time" for you in their office for "preventive" discussions. I undestand that "coperate" optometerits have a quota, that limits them to 10 to 15 minutes. Virtually no intelligent review is possible under that circumstance. This is a scientific forum. The discussions and review that can not be done in 15 minutes can be discussed here. Others can "tune out" if they wish -- no harm done. Best, Otis > Posting scientific reviews By all means, please let us know when you post one. Scott >Can we please stop the Otis bashing. I am a lurker that reads the group on a >regular basis. When I went to the messages today, most of them were Otis [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >someone will have to post one for him. But that is all that is needed, the >rest is just troll food. Your point is fair. You're the audience we seek to protect, but simultaneously not to offend. It's clear the balance is going the other way. The difficulty may be in finding *A* volunteer to consistently respond to the garbage that is posted. Sometimes, in order to ensure that *a* response is posted, *several* (or a slew) get posted instead. I think it's kind of a corrolary to the theory that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free than to put one innocent person to death. Better to flood the bandwidth with these cautions than to have people think what's put forth here is sanctioned and proven. The lurkers *have* the benefit of the kill-file technique. The kindly professionals on this Newsgroup--if they were *not* kindly professionals--could use the same technique. Unfortunately, most of them are aware that this would sacrifice many people to the wolves. You've learned what you've learned. Somebody has to protect the regular flow of new visitors, newly diagnosed with an issue, that seek information grounded in science. As great an idea as I think it is, I don't believe that the weekly s.m.v. disclaimer goes far enough. I'd be more than happy to take a shift. Everybody has certainly seen the boilerplate response I've developed. If anybody would like to suggest changes, we can make changes. I'll catch as many as I can as often as I can. Any ideas--from Ken or others? Neil Brooks said > The lurkers *have* the benefit of the kill-file technique. The kindly > professionals on this Newsgroup--if they were *not* kindly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > information grounded in science. As great an idea as I think it is, I > don't believe that the weekly s.m.v. disclaimer goes far enough. From the viewpoint of someone that just looked in here today after asking advice a year or so ago, it takes about 5 minutes to figure out who to ignore. Most newsgroups have this problem and there is no real solution, but ignoring the the Otis's of the world is probably the most practical approach. It's the long back and forth pointless arguments that tend to overwhelm the useful posts. Casey I agree with you Ken. Otis gets under my skin because despite the time and effort, and the references and explanations, he is unable to think beyond his simple-minded prevention scheme. Good people like LarryDoc and you might get scared away from this newsgroup. Also, trolls like Rishi, heynita, and andrew Judd might come in and start to take over. I agree-- we should all post a disclaimer whenever Otis starts his posting. In my opionion it should state that Otis is not an expert or a doctor, it should point people to places where real scientific information can be found about the subject of myopia prevention, and it should give instructions to people on how to kill-file Otis so we can side-step this mania. Other viewpoints people? Thanks for posting Ken. -------------- > Can we please stop the Otis bashing. I am a lurker that reads the group on > a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > someone will have to post one for him. But that is all that is needed, the > rest is just troll food. I think we should just leave Otis, as well as Gatti and his friends, alone. Yes, leave them alone. Don't try to refute, don't try to make them look stupid, or anything like that. So, what about the newbies, you ask? In the "Welcome to sci.med.vision" post which "The Real Bev" posts here every week, there is all the information that anyone who reads this group really needs. Read it carefully, and you will see. So, what if the newbies don't read that post, you ask? Well in that case, what makes you think they will read your post? The "information to noise" ratio of this group has just gotten way to high. Too much noise. Not enough info. LarryDoc already left because of this, and I have a feeling that other professionals left too and he was just the most vocal. I think most people have more sense than a lot of you give them credit for. They will not be taken in by the "noise". The best thing is to just give out good, solid medical advice. The noise will stand out as noise, just by contrast. >I think we should just leave Otis, as well as Gatti and his friends, >alone. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >just give out good, solid medical advice. The noise will stand out >as noise, just by contrast. Again, good points. You could also ask LarryDoc, et al whether they left because of the *rebuttals* or because of the *posts* themselves. If you elicited from the docs who left this ng that it was the rebuttals, in whole or in large part, that fomented their departure, I'd be the first to abandon the cause. I'm not sure that's what they're going to say, though. I'd guess that those who left left because they saw s.m.v. becoming an infomercial. Just my $0.02 >>I think we should just leave Otis, as well as Gatti and his friends, >>alone. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Just my $0.02 LarryDoc clearly left because of all the rebuttals. He had killfiled the people he didn't want to see, but he couldn't help reading the replies to those he killfiled. He clearly said so in his posts. The average eyecare professional comes here to help people, because that's what health care professionals in general are driven to do. That's what drew them into the field. They come here and they want to get right down to business. But before they can do so, they must slog through a dozen "what the **** are you, some kind of an idiot or something" type of posts before they find someone who really needs help. It's getting aggravating to them. And I don't blame them one bit. >>>I think we should just leave Otis, as well as Gatti and his friends, >>>alone. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >the people he didn't want to see, but he couldn't help reading >the replies to those he killfiled. He clearly said so in his posts. Well, Joe . . . again, while I take your point, your facts are a bit off. Here, look at this: http://snipurl.com/dbam Larry Bickford--while I have sincere respect for him, and have told him that before--was *remarkably* prolific at engaging the troll, and for quite a long while. So, it rings just a touch hollow when you're touting Larry as the guy who "clearly left because of all the rebuttals." > >LarryDoc clearly left because of all the rebuttals. He had killfiled > >the people he didn't want to see, but he couldn't help reading [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So, it rings just a touch hollow when you're touting Larry as the guy > who "clearly left because of all the rebuttals." You're wrong, Neil. Why don't YOU look at that URL and see that out of 126 with me as author, there is but one post to a troll. Not only was I not "prolific", but I did not engage any of the trolls. I may have, once or twice replied to lies and misquotes of my stuff (as I am doing now), but never "engaged" them because obviously that doesn't do a damn bit of good. I may have posted the percentage of postings attributed to them and their BS, but that's all. I tried to convince others to ignore them and clearly I was not successful. I tried to help this group get back to its charter and clearly, I was not successful. I was here to provide scientifically and medically supportable vision care information. Nothing more, nothing less. Even kill-filing does not allow for this group to be a useful place for discussion, not when the vast majority of discussion is about those who are degrading this place. So that means that, right now, I'm contributing to the problem. I apologize. I will, from time to time cruise by and see if this forum is fixed and maybe reply to posts where my name is used inappropriately. This, as an example. Other than that, I'm gone. --Larry >> >LarryDoc clearly left because of all the rebuttals. He had killfiled >> >the people he didn't want to see, but he couldn't help reading [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >--Larry Actually, I see quite a few replies on that link I gave where you're just going at it with, or about, Otis (or Rishi) . . . as so many of us have, unfortunately to no avail. Happily, they're mixed in there with scores of exceptionally helpful, kind, and well-thought posts. I have no interest in disparaging you, Larry. My respect for you stands. If you choose to leave this newsgroup, the newsgroup will have lost. Let me get your opinion, and I seek it sincerely: Is it safe . . . better . . . preferable to simply leave these people unanswered? I'm curious. I mean, you had the option not only to kill-file posters, but to mark threads as ignore. With that option, even if replies from "safe" posters came in to an objectionable thread, you wouldn't have to deal with them. Of course it takes more time, but as the Internet proliferates, the incidence of all sorts of objectionable crap increases proportionally. So what do you think is the answer. When outrageous statements are made, even passers-by are likely to engage.... Neil >>> >LarryDoc clearly left because of all the rebuttals. He had killfiled >>> >the people he didn't want to see, but he couldn't help reading [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > >Neil Eh, never mind. I may be a part of the problem. I think I'll take a little break myself..... > In the "Welcome to sci.med.vision" post which "The Real Bev" posts > here every week, there is all the information that anyone who reads > this group really needs. > > Read it carefully, and you will see. You have to realize that this very usefull posting by "The Real Bev'' is not seen by newbies because Bev post this message in an old thread an not as a new posting. At least this is the case in my newsreader (Outlook)  SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > > In the "Welcome to sci.med.vision" post which "The Real Bev" posts > > here every week, there is all the information that anyone who reads [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > new posting. > At least this is the case in my newsreader (Outlook) Perhaps Outlook just threads by subject rather than by reference; I will change the subject slightly each time from now on. Due to interesting problems among my newsfeeds, I write each one as a new message, type in the subject and then cut and paste the text from the previous weed's offering, so it shouldn't really be threaded. Mobody ever said that Outlook was a GOOD newsreader :-( > Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" > > In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Me too. > Jan (normally Dutch spoken) When I saw 'Soldier of Orange' I was amazed that Dutch sounds exactly like English except with different words. SignatureCheers, Bev xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine. Dear Bev and Jan, Off-topic. Since Jan is Dutch, maybe he can confirm this story of the Germans during WWII, and the Dutch under-ground. To evade the NAZIS, the Dutch found the name of a town that the Germans could not pronounce. I think is was "Snavling" or something like that. Maybe Jan knows. I am just curious if he knows his history. This is a tribute to the brave Dutch during WWII. Best, Otis > When I saw 'Soldier of Orange' I was amazed that Dutch sounds exactly > like English except with different words. How kind you are Bev , the foreigners who are visiting my beautiful country often said it sounds like a barking dogs. BTW, your new welcome message arrived on the right place this time in top of the messages and not in the thread as it did before. SignatureJan (normally Dutch spoken) > "The Real Bev" <bashley@myrealbox.com> schreef: > > When I saw 'Soldier of Orange' I was amazed that Dutch sounds exactly > > like English except with different words. > > How kind you are Bev , the foreigners who are visiting my beautiful country > often said it sounds like a barking dogs. Interesting. Perhaps to some foreigners EVERYBODY sounds like a barking dog. It also might explain why two different Frenchmen 20 years apart thought I spoke French like a Dutchman. > BTW, your new welcome message arrived on the right place this time in top of > the messages and not in the thread as it did before. OK, just adding the number was good enough. Not difficult at all. SignatureCheers, Bev --------------------------------------------------- Don't you just KNOW that there is more than one Sierra Club member who is absolutely sure that the dinosaurs died out because of something humans did? > I think most people have more sense than a lot of you give them credit > for. They will not be taken in by the "noise". The best thing is to > just give out good, solid medical advice. The noise will stand out > as noise, just by contrast. Please Stella, the noise is the medicine that does not work. Can't you see? All NEWBIES come here to complain for their difficulties, expecially with spectacles and ods and opticians. What to do? It is their fault,, they are not able to cure people, they act unscientifically! What to do? |
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.