 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005To John Yaser:
Hey John, I see that some very nutty person is doing some creative clipping from private emails, without giving the context, of course. I don't respond directly to whackos on s.m.v., and will no long e-mail them either, no matter how outrageous their posts and e-mails get. s.m.v. has definitely quieted down a lot since most of the regulars aren't feeding the trolls any more, and maybe my e-mail box will quiet down too... w.stacy, o.d. Sorry I misspelled your name on the first post, in which I wrote: > Hey John, I see that some very nutty person is doing some creative > clipping from private emails, without giving the context, of course. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. > Sorry I misspelled your name on the first post, in which I wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> w.stacy, o.d. This is getting out of hand and seriously started bothering me, first off, I wanted to make sure if the conversation was taken from SMV, I could not locate it therefore I requested to learn where it took place. In my honest opinion, I AM STRONGLY AGAINST disclosing private email correspondence to public. I am against this and I will not participate! As for the matter in question, what is "full minus" mentioned here? My Rx is a barely -.50 on the right eye which would require correction depending the time of the day, is that a full minus? If that is, I am required to wear it per military requirements, especially for night, during day flight it is up to the pilot. I kindly ask not to carry personal conversations to public.  SignaturePV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA Camp Humphreys, South Korea Saturday, 18 Jun 2005 / 14:57:46 Korea Standard Time (+0900) >> Sorry I misspelled your name on the first post, in which I wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I kindly ask not to carry personal conversations to public. Agreed. Full minus just means the amount of myopia as measured by an optometrist or an ophthalmologist. w.stacy, o.d. Oh, and yes, in your case -.50 is the full minus. w.stacy, o.d. > Oh, and yes, in your case -.50 is the full minus. Not a big deal, I don't believe minus is evil. How evil can a -.50 minus be? SignaturePV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA Camp Humphreys, South Korea Saturday, 18 Jun 2005 / 23:06:14 Korea Standard Time (+0900) >> Oh, and yes, in your case -.50 is the full minus. >> > Not a big deal, I don't believe minus is evil. How evil can a -.50 minus > be? There are those who believe it is so evil that they would deprive a myopic child who has 2 D. of anisometropia his spectacle Rx, and would somehow prevent that child from focusing on near objects. In my book that is criminal child abuse of a cultish nature. w.stacy, o.d. > Agreed. Full minus just means the amount of myopia as measured by an > optometrist or an ophthalmologist. I thought that too, A FULL -.50!!! :D :D :D Wearing a -.50 will not harm my eyes after this age. Only required for night flying. It is not like I am wearing a -10 to look at distances of 25 cms in front of my nose. I still have 20/20 vision. SignaturePV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA Camp Humphreys, South Korea Dear John, There is an HONEST disagreement about the dynamic nature of the eye -- and a method of preventing it. That is techical, sincere, honest, the second-opinion, and justified by the experimental data itself. When Stacy calles me "criminal" because I experss an honest (though difficult) second-opinion I get pissed. I have not called Stacy a "criminal". and I have used neutral words to describe the behavior of the fundamental eye. Stacy needs to learn to NOT call people "criminal" who express an honest technical second-opinion. I did post this because of THAT accusation. That statement insults my character, and I do respond that that type of statement. You know from your our converstation with Steve Leung OD, that he is not a criminal. He just supports the concept that the public should be offered an "honest choice" at the threshold. They can always turn it down at that point. But what follows -- can not be reversed. www.chinamyopia.org Best, Otis Dear William, Why not wait for John to respond. Then post what you wish on John's PASSING the military requirement. John requested the discussion. Let us wait. Best, Otis Further, I sent the clip to verify your statement that John was flying with "full minus". John then asked that he respons on smv, so THAT is the reason I posted that part of our conversation. That is the reason for the post on sci.med.vision -- to clarify that issue of legal requirements of 20/20 -- versus you desire that a pilot use a strong minus to get to 20/10. I think that CHOICE should be the option of the pilot. Best, Otis > I think that CHOICE should be > the option of the pilot. The choice of the pilot would be to ignore Otis. Allen Dear William, Stacy> Hey John, I see that some very nutty person is doing some creative clipping from private emails, without giving the context, of course. Otis> Then perhaps I must post the full email -- so I don't quote you "out of context". This is a matter of "freedom of speech". It is also a matter of freedom in expressing judgment about scientific issues, as well as the "second-opinion" concerning prevention with the plus. You don't like the concept -- fine. Just stop calling people "criminal" because they express the second-opinion on an "open" scientific fourm. Best, Otis Dear William, I stated that the state requirement was for 20/40 or better vision. When you refer to my honest statement as "criminal" then I WILL react. I don't insult you. We disagree about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- on a pure scientific level. You insist that there is NO RELATIONSHIP betwee the visual enviroment of the natural eye -- and its average visual enviroment. That issue can be resolved on a scientific level by testing the natural eye on an "input" (visual enviroment) versu "output" (refractive status) scientific level. To refer to this intellectual-analytical activity as "criminal" far exceeds anything that is reasonable on your part. I have not posted our email conversation. If you wish I will post the rest. Stacy> That is nuts AND criminal. Best, Otis |
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.