Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

note to s.m.v. trolls

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
William Stacy - 19 Sep 2005 20:55 GMT
I must appologize for referring to non-trolls as the "intelligent"
ones.  That obvious slip in prose should have read "the informed" ones.
Obviously many trolls are intelligent, even if ignorant and/or misguided
in their zeal for the conspiracy theories...

w.stacy, o.d.
otisbrown@pa.net - 20 Sep 2005 03:43 GMT
Dear William,

Subject:  Majority opinion trolls
and second-opinion trolls.

There is indeed a profound
intellectual struggle about
PREVENTION.

I consider (at 20/50) that
it is difficult -- but possible.

You consider it IMPOSSIBLE,
and wil prescribe for 20/10 vision.

But as you suggest -- it depends
on your "professional field".

I think it was said by
Will Rodgers that
everyone is ignorant -- about
something.

Continue to enjoy our
work to accurately represent
the dynamic behavior of the
natural eye -- on a
scientific (not medical)
level.

That way we can learn
about true-prevention as
friends.  Over wine-and-cheese
this would be a great topic.

Best,

Otis
LarryDoc - 20 Sep 2005 04:10 GMT
In article <1127184222.904046.69210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote:  Nothing of value, as
usual.

GO AWAY ALREADY!
Neil Brooks - 20 Sep 2005 15:50 GMT
>I think it was said by
>Will Rodgers that
>everyone is ignorant -- about
>something.

And scores of others who said that Otis is, apparently, ignorant about
nearly everything.

>Continue to enjoy our
>work to accurately represent
>the dynamic behavior of the
>natural eye -- on a
>scientific (not medical)
>level.

Years have passed and I still don't have any idea what this means.  I
think it means that Otis's theories /could/ work if you surgically
removed your eyes and powered them by batteries.

Is that right, Otis?

>That way we can learn
>about true-prevention as
>friends.  Over wine-and-cheese
>this would be a great topic.

The last thing /you/ need is intoxicants (could be very dangerous with
your meds, incidentally) ... and your posts have smelled like
limburger cheese since day one.
Scott Seidman - 20 Sep 2005 15:59 GMT
"otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in news:1127184222.904046.69210
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Continue to enjoy our
> work to accurately represent
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> friends.  Over wine-and-cheese
> this would be a great topic.

I agree.  The study section would get quite a chuckle over this while
enjoying wine and cheese after the meeting.

Signature

Scott
Reverse name to reply

 
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.