 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2006Your "Blasts" against true-prevention -- Neil Brooks
Dear Neil, Subject: Setting up a web page -- against the dynamic eye concept. Since you hate the concept of true-prevention with the plus, why not use your "brain cells" and set up your own web-site AGAINST the concept of true-prevention. That is explain youself. In fact, if you will keep your language "clean", I will "link" to your page, calling it a "layman" speaks out againt true-prevention with the plus. That will save you the problem of repeating youself. Type www.geocities.com or http://geocities.yahoo.com/gcp Then set up a page. Prove your techical ability to do so. If you need help let me know. Best, Otis What a kindly gesture. Perhaps I have misjudged you. Here is my first attempt. Please feel free to comment, if you will. http://tinyurl.com/cqce3 > Dear Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Otis What a kindly gesture. Perhaps I have misjudged you. Here is my first attempt. Please feel free to comment, if you will. http://tinyurl.com/cqce3 > Dear Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Otis So, Uncle Otie? What did you think?? Are you ready to refer people to my site or what?? Don't be bashful. If you can keep from using your usual profanity and vulgarity, I welcome constructive criticism. Dear Neil, I think you are a seriously "disturbed" person. I have never seen anyone take the actions you have taken -- beyond belief. All these ODs are completely "forgiven" -- if you are the type of person that walks in "off the street". If I were an OD -- you indeed would scare the hell out of me. I will let the "readers" of sci.med.vision judge the mentality of a person who posts these types of statements. "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: >I have posted the Oakley-Young study which is >good clinical science. IF your child has near-point esophoria. >The study suggest in strong terms, that if you ever >want to AVOID getting into nearsighedness (part >of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye) you >should review the concept and make up your >mind as to what you wish to do about it. But readers of sci.med.vision post these kinds of statements? Would you trust a person like this? Neil's post: +========== Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. Stop lying, Uncle Otie. ================ I rest my case. Even the most dedicated "preventive" OD can not deal with this type of situation -- nor would I expect him to put himself "at risk" to the psychosis of Neil Brooks. My sympathy is with them. If fact, the ODs need advance no more logical arguments or analysis to judtify their silence. All they must say that we fear the "Neil Brooks" of this word -- and I understand perfectly. I hope others will also. Otis >Dear Neil, > >I think you are a seriously "disturbed" person. If your credentials in psychology are anything like your credentials in optometry, I feel pretty comfortable with that diagnosis being only as good as any of your others.... >I have never seen anyone take the actions you have taken -- beyond >belief. I'll go as far as the law will allow to see to it that you stop posting. We have seen that your posts have *harmed* people. It will be up to the District Attorney to decide whether or not your approach is covered under the First Amendment. Meanwhile, I hope that the process is of no small inconvenience to you. >All these ODs are completely "forgiven" -- if you are the >type of person that walks in "off the street". I know that absolution from you will mean the world to them, Uncle Otie. >If I were an OD -- you indeed would scare the hell out of me. What does one's occupation have to do with whether or not I'm scary? Shouldn't I be equally scary to a plumber, or a waiter, or a graphic artist? I don't understand your point. >I will let the "readers" of sci.med.vision judge the >mentality of a person who posts these types of >statements. I really think you ought to be concerned about your own credibility, Uncle Otie. You're the one trying to sell people on a disproven theory, not me.  SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live |
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.