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 / January 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Need help on vision or eyes?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
William Stacy - 17 Jan 2006 07:36 GMT
It looks like the whackos have messed up s.m.v. once again.

I'm sure it's only temporary, so I'll check back from time to time, but
for now, you can find some answers and I'm available for other questions at:

http://www.obase.net

Bye.

w.stacy, o.d.
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 17 Jan 2006 09:12 GMT
under eye FAQs can you add diopters to 20/xxx conversion? This comes up
so often it deserves a spot in your FAQs on your website :)
otisbrown@pa.net - 17 Jan 2006 15:18 GMT
Dear Ace-man, and majority-opinion ODs

> under eye FAQs can you add diopters to 20/xxx conversion? This comes up
> so often it deserves a spot in your FAQs on your website :)

Apperently anyone who ask questions of any sort that Willaim
does not "like" is called a "waco", or words to that effect.

It would be nice if we all had the ablity to ask more
"organized" questions, but it is clear that SOME people
don't like that idea in a scientific format.

Otis
Jan - 17 Jan 2006 20:36 GMT
> under eye FAQs can you add diopters to 20/xxx conversion? This comes up
> so often it deserves a spot in your FAQs on your website :)

Wake up ace, there is no conversion possible from diopters to vision acuity
and vice versa, period
There is a relation nothing more nothing less.
A black and white excample ace?
A blind eye with a refractive error zero or a refractive error minus ten
still have both a  vision acuity of zero, cappice?

Signature

Free to  Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

otisbrown@pa.net - 18 Jan 2006 03:28 GMT
Dear J,

Subject:  The concept that the fundamental primate
eye is dynamic -- should be accepted.

Re:  That is good science -- but it is not you
"type" of medicine.

Some more commentary on new concepts.

    "When adults first become conscious of something new, they
usually either attack it or try to escape from it...  Attack
includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely
putting it out of mind."

    - W.  I.  B Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation,

    "All truth passes through three stages:  First, it is
ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is
accepted as self-evident."

                 - Arthur Schopenhauer

    "Theories have four stages of acceptance:

    i) this is worthless nonsense;

    ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view;

    iii) this is true, but quite unimportant;

    iv) I always said so.

                - J.B.S.  Haldane

    "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not
worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

                    - Galileo Galileo

    "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;
the point is to discover them."

                  - Galileo Galilei

    "You can recognize a pioneer by the arrows in his back."

                   - Beverly Rubik

=================

So as always, enjoy our pleasant discussion that
respects the prove behavior of the natural primate eye -- when
accurate measurements are made on a scientific (not medical)
level.

Best,

Otis
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 18 Jan 2006 12:00 GMT
the truth is otis, the plus lens theory went through these stages
decades ago when it was first considered.  what you don't list is the
final stage-- when the theory is disproven and some old die-hards still
continue to hold onto it and refuse to move on!  thats where you are
otis.

Move on die-hard!

=========================

>      "When adults first become conscious of something new, they
> usually either attack it or try to escape from it...  Attack
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>                 - J.B.S.  Haldane
Dr. Leukoma - 18 Jan 2006 13:03 GMT
Otis,

You have already shown that you are a legend in your own mind.  You
will remain a legend in your own mind as long as you live.

DrG
drfrank21@gmail.com - 17 Jan 2006 21:03 GMT
> It looks like the whackos have messed up s.m.v. once again.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> w.stacy, o.d.

Bill, I would have been more impressed if you had listed an impartial
web
site such as www.eyeglossary.net instead of your own. Maybe it's just
me but it seems self-promoting/self-serving when you list your own web
site
on a newsgroup as a site for info (hopefully you didn't do as a form of

advertising which would be really classless).

frank
Robert Redelmeier - 18 Jan 2006 00:05 GMT
>> It looks like the whackos have messed up s.m.v. once again.

>> I'm sure it's only temporary, so I'll check back from time
>> to time, but for now, you can find some answers and I'm
>> available for other questions at:

>> http://www.obase.net

>> Bye.  >> w.stacy, o.d.

> Bill, I would have been more impressed if you had listed
> an impartial web site such as www.eyeglossary.net
> instead of your own. Maybe it's just me but it seems
> self-promoting/self-serving when you list your own web site
> on a newsgroup as a site for info (hopefully you didn't do
> as a form of advertising which would be really classless).

Impartiality neither expected nor required.  This is a
forwarding address!  He is more than entitled to leave one.

-- Robert
 
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.