 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2006Tolerance and Understanding
http://www.frinkfest.com/ Some people think that certain posters on this group are "missing some pieces". What should we do about this?  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Dear Dan, You are correct. Some people are tollerant, and are honest about a difficult but potentially successful second-opinion. Others have no tollerance, and thing themselves "GOD" because they can impress a person with a strong minus lens. As per: And: From Dr. Grant Speaking seriously, and as a professional, there are a few points I wish to make. 1) In my consulting room, as you correctly stated, I am god. 2) I earned that right through study, hard work and developing a reputation for quality work, excellent results and caring for my patients and their welfare. 3) You have not earned that right. You are a pathetic little pissant that insults the very fibre of prevention of myopia. You do not deal with 20 patients a day wanting to see clearly, you do not have to ensure that a kid can see the board in class, as well as read and function outside the classroom. 4) You have no concept of the issues, I and every other OD must face on a daily basis for the best welfare of each and every one of our patients. You prefer to pontificate about evil minus and second opinion crap, whose supporters are less credible than yourself. 5) You keep talking about second opinion doctors, but never name any other than Steven Leung. Why is this? I do know several OD's in Hong Kong and Singapore and Steven Leung is held in the esteem that I hold you and Nancy. He has no basis to his method, he just uses the fear of parents to sell his glasses for his own profit. His website is a fraud and most of the links don't work. There is no scientific validation, just fear-mongering. All in all, you are a pathetic, miserable sycophant that has nothing to provdie other than fear. No answers, no proof, nothing. Crawl back under your rock and fester away. dr grant +++++++++++++ Yes, let us try to avoid the "foul mouth" of some posters on this open scientific respecting the right of freedom of speech about the scientific issue of the eye's dynamic behavior. Best, Otis ======== > http://www.frinkfest.com/ > > Some people think that certain posters on this group are "missing some > pieces". What should we do about this? > Dear Dan, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "GOD" because they can impress a person > with a strong minus lens. It's obvious you're not tolerant of the "majority opinion" as you put it. You think it should be shot at birth and all OD's are wrong, don't you? And that any who don't follow your advice are neglecting, even neglecting their children, you filthy guilt scare mongering parasitic worm. Cya Simon > Some people are tollerant, and are honest about > a difficult but potentially successful second-opinion. We tolerate you very poorly Cletis. You lie, you misrepresent, you twist facts and avoid answering legitimate questions such as NAME ONE REFERENCE IN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE THAT DISCUSSES FUNDAMENTAL EYES AND A NATURAL EYE, or NAME ONE OPTOMETRIST OTHER THAN STEVEN LEUNG THAT IS A SECOND OPINION OPTOMETRIST? The reason that second opinions are difficult is there is no-one doing them. > Others have no tollerance, and thing themselves > "GOD" because they can impress a person > with a strong minus lens. Yes, I am a GOD in my own consulting room, however, I never prescribe strong minus, only gentle minus to allow people to see clearly. I leave the strong and evil minus to bozos like you. > From Dr. Grant > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > of freedom of speech about the scientific > issue of the eye's dynamic behavior. I think that my summation was pretty accurate and reading it in hindsight, I am impressed with my restraint. Now discussing your request for freedom of speech of a scientific nature, "NAME ONE REFERENCE IN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE THAT DISCUSSES FUNDAMENTAL EYES AND A NATURAL EYE", or "NAME ONE OPTOMETRIST OTHER THAN STEVEN LEUNG THAT IS A SECOND OPINION OPTOMETRIST?" Dan, The answer is very easy. Do not read, or rspond to my posts. For others, who do not wish their children to get stair-case myopia -- or, more importantly, help them avoid entry, I suggest that you learn the second-opinion on the subject by reading: www.chinamyopia.org Perhaps, you can help your children by going to the RIGHT optometrists -- and learning from him. Best, Otis > http://www.frinkfest.com/ > > Some people think that certain posters on this group are "missing some > pieces". What should we do about this? > Do not read, or rspond to my posts. WRONG AGAIN Otis. We are ensuring that new folks understand that you are not in the medical profession and want to be sure they understand YOU ARE NOT IN ANY POSITION TO GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE. As long as you continue to post, I will be sure to follow up with my warnings about you. A second opinion should be received by a MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, NOT AN ENGINEER. Allen > http://www.frinkfest.com/ > > Some people think that certain posters on this group are "missing some > pieces". What should we do about this? Well, that seems to have backfired. :-( I haven't seen much tolerance or understanding in this thread. As punishment, I'm going to tell a story. :-) It has nothing to do with vision, but may relate a lot to this group. My family has gone to church camp every summer for the last 20 years. About five years ago, C started coming. That's not his name, but it's close enough. He was about 14, so he was 19 last summer. He is "missing pieces". Some people found that irritating, others were more tolerant and some actually bent over backwards to make him feel welcome. Last summer, C spent several hours a day playing tetherball with the little kids the first week. He didn't play the way most adults would with little kids. He was out to win. In tetherball, height and reach are everything. C was a pretty big guy, and these kids barely came up to his waist. Maybe the little kids were too young to understand about winning, because they were all laughing and screaming, and there were always several waiting for their turn, even though C always creamed them. The second week, C wasn't playing with the little kids as much. I didn't really notice, and C had a job that week, mostly working in the kitchen. What I really didn't notice was that T, who was nine years old, figured C for an easy target. He taunted and harassed C unmercifully. Finally, C couldn't take it anymore, and when T called him a "retard", C hit him, hard. T was taken to the ER to evaluate the damage. C got sent home, and although T wasn't punished, his grandparents decided to leave. C was not a retard. He was very intelligent and knowledgeable. Because of his "missing pieces", he was difficult to tolerate and understand. I would suggest that we try to tolerate and understand the people who post here, without tolerating or understanding some of the really bad advice that some are giving. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > I would suggest that we try to tolerate and understand the people who > post here, without tolerating or understanding some of the really bad > advice that some are giving. That approach would likely prove fruitful if it were a two-way street. In fact, I expect that if one were to peruse the archives for a few years back, one would see that 'back in the day' there *were* more efforts to understand, to communicate, and to tolerate. But that approach will only function if there is some evidence that the 'people providing the bad advice' are even interested in hearing what the others are trying to say. It's like someone telling you that 'grass is blue'. You try to explain that grass, in fact, is green - and you take a moment to try to understand if perhaps this person was simply taught that the color we know as 'green', is to be known as 'blue' - this would explain the confusion, and might even allow for further communication. But the only response the person provides to the question is - 'grass is blue'. The simple repetition of the phrase allows for no understanding as to why the person believes it to be the case - and therefore no hope of meaningful communication. How long can tolerance and understanding work where the-one-who-is-to-be-tolerated shows no interest in a measured discussion, but simply repeats the same notion over and over? > That approach would likely prove fruitful if it were a two-way street. The simple repetition of the phrase allows for no > understanding as to why the person believes it to be the case - and > therefore no hope of meaningful communication. > > How long can tolerance and understanding work where > the-one-who-is-to-be-tolerated shows no interest in a measured > discussion, but simply repeats the same notion over and over? You hit the nail on the head. frank > > That approach would likely prove fruitful if it were a two-way street. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You hit the nail on the head. Exactly which nail was hit on whose head? SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA >> I would suggest that we try to tolerate and understand the people who >> post here, without tolerating or understanding some of the really bad [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >the-one-who-is-to-be-tolerated shows no interest in a measured >discussion, but simply repeats the same notion over and over? In addition, I'm not sure I come here to be someone's social worker. It's hard work being with a special needs person all the time and sometimes you need a break. We rarely get one here from Ace and Otis and after a time their going on and on with the same rubbish wears you down. Ann > > I would suggest that we try to tolerate and understand the people who > > post here, without tolerating or understanding some of the really bad > > advice that some are giving. > > That approach would likely prove fruitful if it were a two-way street. But it isn't, and the lack of tolerance and understanding isn't helping things. I would contend that it is at least a three-way street. > In fact, I expect that if one were to peruse the archives for a few > years back, one would see that 'back in the day' there *were* more > efforts to understand, to communicate, and to tolerate. That's very true. > But that approach will only function if there is some evidence that the > 'people providing the bad advice' are even interested in hearing what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > understanding as to why the person believes it to be the case - and > therefore no hope of meaningful communication. But the grass wasn't green, at least for me, for some time. After my first cataract surgery, I was astounded to see colors again. > How long can tolerance and understanding work where > the-one-who-is-to-be-tolerated shows no interest in a measured > discussion, but simply repeats the same notion over and over? Nobody ever promised us a rose garden. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA [snip] Again, Dan, much respect for you, but BD is right: go back a while. I tried....for YEARS....to understand, to engage, to ask valid questions, to get explanations of the myriad holes in Elevator Boy's theories, to ask for defense of constant logical fallacies, or to fruitfully and respectfully engage on ANY level. But he can't, doesn't, and won't. Ann's right: it gets old....fast....and I REPEAT: he DOES hurt people, giving nearly a DOZEN....that I know of....double vision. I've had double vision. It stinks. He's NEVER HELPED ANYBODY, as far as we can tell, and he HAS hurt people. The Church doesn't necessarily ask its members to embrace those who hurt people, as far as I know. Am I wrong?? Neil >From Portugal.... i second the motion. otis claims to offer advise but he can and has done harm. he should be stopped. since we cannot physically stop him on the internet we can oppose him at ever turn. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Neil > >From Portugal.... > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ask for defense of constant logical fallacies, or to fruitfully and > respectfully engage on ANY level. Yup. He states something about myopic monkeys... you ask him to explain what he means about myopic monkeys, he then comes back with a disjointed statements saying you're thick, doctors are thick, OD's are damaging your health, and alters the subject to something about chickens wearing glasses. You ask him a question, he gives an unrelated pasting. I don't think anybody minds his second opinion par se. I mean, if someone comes on here says "help I have text jumping out from the page" I might answer and give my experiences as an aid for that person to look at different causes to their issues and raise with their doctor... but I also qualify my opinions by saying "Im not a doctor". While also stressing the important of seeing a doctor. Otis doesn't do this but on top, says that people are neglecting, or neglectful of their childrens eye sight by following what he calls "majority opinion" and he talks actively about only seeking out doctors that support his methods [snip] Again, Dan, much respect for you, but BD is right: go back a while. I tried....for YEARS....to understand, to engage, to ask valid questions, to get explanations of the myriad holes in Elevator Boy's theories, to ask for defense of constant logical fallacies, or to fruitfully and respectfully engage on ANY level. But he can't, doesn't, and won't. Ann's right: it gets old....fast....and I REPEAT: he DOES hurt people, giving nearly a DOZEN....that I know of....double vision. I've had double vision. It stinks. He's NEVER HELPED ANYBODY, as far as we can tell, and he HAS hurt people. The Church doesn't necessarily ask its members to embrace those who hurt people, as far as I know. Am I wrong?? Neil >From Portugal.... Dear Dan, I know how easy it is to impress a person with that minus lens. I do acknowledge that if I were "dealing" with the public walking in off the street -- where that was all they could understand -- then I would use it and do it. I can no criticize anyone who does it -- but I do think their is perhaps a "better way". That would mean a change of the "context" of the argument -- but that is something that can never be "delievered" in an office in 10 minutes. What I realized -- in taking to a second-opinion OD, was that while he might WISH to help the public with PREVENTION -- that would be impossible as the may posters are proving here. And that the only people a second-opinion OD could help -- would be his own children, again for the reasons the majority (and public) state here. But I am prepared to understand this issue -- and if you don't want your kids to develop stair-case myopia -- perhaps you should re-think the subject matter. Again, just a suggestion. Don't go ballistic on me now. Best, Otis > > > I would suggest that we try to tolerate and understand the people who > > > post here, without tolerating or understanding some of the really bad [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Nobody ever promised us a rose garden. > but > I do think their is perhaps a "better way". "I think" and "perhaps"? That's your evidence? > But I am prepared to understand this issue -- and > if you don't want your kids to develop stair-case > myopia -- perhaps you should re-think the > subject matter. And "perhaps" you should "re-think" whether "stair-case" myopia exists. Parssinen couldn't find it. Grosvenor couldn't find it. Ong couldn't find it. Shotwell couldn't find it. Gwiazda couldn't find it. Where is it documented that human myopes who wear glasses get more nearsighted than human myopes who don't? Where? Pretty please, tell us? -MT Of course, the second-opinion take the facts seriously -- as you do not. But here they are: http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html But of course by your "paradigm", these people just have very bad "heredity", and their environment has absolutly no effect on their refractive STATE. Engineers and scientists take facts seriously -- as you obvioulsly do not. But then that is the nature of the judgment of a majority opinion OD, versus the judgment of the preventive second-opinion OD. I would ask the person (on the threshold) if he would like to avoid entry into a negative refracitve STATE, or just join the 87 percent entering into stair-case myopia. Otis > > but > > I do think their is perhaps a "better way". [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Where? Pretty please, tell us? > But of course by your "paradigm", these people just > have very bad "heredity", and their environment > has absolutly no effect on their refractive STATE. No, you're lying to yourself, Otis. Who here has told you that myopia is 100% genetic? The literature shows working distance and time spent at near DO influence the progress of juvenile myopia. > Engineers and scientists take facts seriously -- as > you obvioulsly do not. What's "obviouls" is you're engineering your own facts and building a new science on them. > But then that is the nature of the judgment of > a majority opinion OD, versus the judgment > of the preventive second-opinion OD. The majority of ODs do NOT believe myopia is 100% genetic. Otis, this is a bald-faced lie. > or just join the 87 percent entering into > stair-case myopia. It's entirely possible that 87% of 9-year-olds newly diagnosed with juvenile myopia will be more myopic after a year or two. It DOES matter how close they work. It DOES matter how long they sustain close work. But DOESN'T matter whether they wear glasses or not, and special lenses are NOT epidemiologically useful as preventive or remedial treatment for myopia. Citations: Parssinen, Ong, Gwiazda, Shotwell, Grosvenor and several more. I know I just went over your head, but YOU know those authors tested for "stair-case myopia" and did not find it. Your graph is very pretty but it only shows that collies have long noses and pugs have short ones. No, hell, you're comparing collies and coyotes. No mention of who is wearing glasses and who is not. Please answer the question. >> Where is it documented that human myopes who wear glasses get more >> nearsighted than human myopes who don't? I'd stop asking, but you insist on popping up and confusing every new question with 50-year-old dogma. Oops. Now you'll tell us your history of prescribing habits. But you'll leave out the 50s and 60s, when optometrists DID agree with you. Ever wonder why optometrists stopped prescribing special lenses for myopia? No? -MT > Nobody ever promised us a rose garden. Dan, BD hit the nail on the head when he stated there is no two way communication. In fact, the intolerance and lack of understanding comes from Otis himself - he has no capacity of even listening to any other poster that does not agree with his "black and white" world. I feel sorry for him. You should as well. frank > I feel sorry for him. You should as well. In my book, even the 'feeling sorry' has limits. Considering that his advice would seem to have actually caused more harm than good, in terms of people having tried the approach he touts and been harmed by it, it is my humble opinion that someone like Otis needs to be Shown The Door. Pity that turning this forum into a moderated one would be its death knoll. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right. If you advise a person who does not know any better, and who (at the time) sees you as an ostensible authority, to take an action which results in that person being harmed, you need to be... censured. At the *very* least. Regardless of whether your intentions were malicious. Distinguishing ignorance from malice is another topic. I don't see Otis as malicious, but I *do* see him as rather compromised, from an overal mental integrity standpoint (that's PC lingo for "He's a f*cking nutbar."). Unless he simply doesn't read the posts that criticize him, that is. You have to figure that any sentient being, with an ounce of insight, would at least begin to *consider* the possibility that it isn't the rest of the world that's got it wrong... especially in the face of this much consistent criticism. Oh well. That's far more verbose than necessary, I know. The nutbar comment is far more to-the-point. BD > > I feel sorry for him. You should as well. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Pity that turning this forum into a moderated one would be its death > knoll. I feel sorry for Otis because he apparently knows nothing else in life. All he can do is espouse his well worn mantra over and over again. Just very sad he can't turn an iota of this energy into something constructive or to have a life. frank >>> I feel sorry for him. You should as well. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of this energy into something constructive or to have a > life. That's a noble emotion but maybe not the right one. It appears that IS his life and that is what (all?) he feels compelled to do. If his activities were completely harmless then one might feel sorry for him but that doesn't appear to be the case. Sad might be better. I think sorry implies toleration as a component. -Quick > It has nothing to do with vision, but may relate a lot to this group. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > dabel@sonic.net > Petaluma, California, USA When someone like the retard posts lies and misinformation as he does, the tolerance thing goes away. > When someone like the retard posts lies and misinformation as he > does, the tolerance thing goes away. I'm sorry that you feel that way. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > > When someone like the retard posts lies and misinformation as he > > does, the tolerance thing goes away. > > I'm sorry that you feel that way. I have zero tolerance for fraud. That's why I feel the way I 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.