 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2007Humble apologies
Some of you questioned the sincerity of my first set of apologies. I was quite hurt by your skepticism regarding my sincerity. Still, I do humbly apologize for my antics on this forum. I have been trying to quit one lascivious habit that usually occupied my idle hands, but have only been able to substitute it with this, equally destructive, habit of annoying people on this forum. I shall seek to stop, but no promises. Revivul > Some of you questioned the sincerity of my first set of apologies. I > was quite hurt by your skepticism regarding my sincerity. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I shall seek to stop, but no promises. Whether you make promises or not doesn't make any difference -- your promises are not worth the paper they are written on (or the cyberspace they occupy). Still want to be an ophthalmologist? Don't bother. You don't need a medical degree or license to prescribe water or recommend Bates as cures for all eye ailments. >> Some of you questioned the sincerity of my first set of apologies. I >> was quite hurt by your skepticism regarding my sincerity. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > medical degree or license to prescribe water or recommend Bates as > cures for all eye ailments. Oh, please, Brainy. Even *you* should have seen that was a forgery... Look at the email addy. You're lecturing Neil, is my guess. > Oh, please, Brainy. > Even *you* should have seen that was a forgery... > Look at the email addy. You're lecturing Neil, is my guess.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Relax, I saw it and decided to play the game. It was not a forgery but rather a satire or parody. > > Some of you questioned the sincerity of my first set of apologies. I > > was quite hurt by your skepticism regarding my sincerity. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > medical degree or license to prescribe water or recommend Bates as > cures for all eye ailments. And YOU called ME less than sharp for not distinguishing between Otis and Odis? I feel better now. Always pays to feel superior by your own virtues, not by putting others down. There is karmic justice.  Signature~RT > And YOU called ME less than sharp for not distinguishing between Otis > and Odis? I feel better now. Always pays to feel superior by your own [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Oh please, I didn't call you anything and certainly did not intend to insult you or your intelligence. My comment was general rather than personal, in response to another poster. Missing a modification of one letter is not (IMO) a symptom of dullness. Actually, it might sometimes indicate the opposite. Seeing the BIG picture is what requires intelligence. People who are hooked on details (like "rain man") but miss the connections and meanings often lack the human superiority over computers. BTW, I am glad that you feel better due to karmic justice, but I don't believe in karma. I see this is new poster with no previous posts. absolutelyidio...@hotmail.com Yet another fake from our friend in San Diego, I would suggest -- playing his usual "head games". > Some of you questioned the sincerity of my first set of apologies. I > was quite hurt by your skepticism regarding my sincerity. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Revivul On Jun 10, 11:10 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > I see this is new poster with no previous posts. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > Revivul still ignoring direct questions that are seriously posted to you in other threads but willing to add your useless $0.02 in another thread? otis, can you explain why two statistically-controlled studies where human subjects were intentionally overminused did NOT result in them developing accelerated myopia (=staircase myopia) as you claim it should? here are the references: 1. Goss, D. (1984) Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic progression. Am J Optom Physiol Opt., Feb;61(2):85-93. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=6703013&query_hl=3 2. Kushner BJ. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999 May;117(5):638-42. Does overcorrecting minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia cause myopia? http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/5/638 were these studies invalid according to the "Otis Engineer" criterion of engineering-science research? and the more I think about it the more I believe that you really were NOT a trained practicing engineer. i know a few engineers and they tend to be quite logical rational evidence-based thinkers and that definitely is not what you are. where did you go to school and where were you employed before you retired? did you retire or were you fired? truly-- if you worked for me in the research group I collaborate with I would dismiss you for total lack of objectivity and total unfamiliarity with the subjects you claim to be knowledgeable about. and why do you keep running away and hiding? > On Jun 10, 11:10 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > > I see this is new poster with no previous posts. > and the more I think about it the more I believe that you really were > NOT a trained practicing engineer. i know a few engineers and they > tend to be quite logical rational evidence-based thinkers My father was a quite logical rational evidence-based thinker for many decades. Now he has senile dementia and must be closely supervised. My point is that someone could be a competent professional in younger days, but have major problems in some ways in later life. Dear Dan, Yes, and it is true that scientists like Dr. Colgate are logical and reasonable about the application of preventive methods. http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/AboutUs.txt The fact of disagreement should cause us to recognize the second-opinion and work with it -- not deny that a negative refractive STATE can be prevented, if the person has the motivation and intelligence to do it RIGHT. Just one man's opinion. Otis > In article <1181532896.732896.5...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > My point is that someone could be a competent professional in younger > days, but have major problems in some ways in later life. On Jun 10, 8:59 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Dan, > > Yes, Are you saying that your case is identical to that of Dan's father? To wit: "My father was a quite logical rational evidence-based thinker for many decades. Now he has senile dementia and must be closely supervised." Is this true of you, too, Uncle Otie? On Jun 10, 11:59 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Dan, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > My point is that someone could be a competent professional in younger > > days, but have major problems in some ways in later life. what the hell does Sterling Colgate have to do with this thread? stay on topic Otis, just like you scolded me above! here you go trying to thrust your unfounded notions on people when they didn't even ask and when they don't even care. so where did you go to school to earn your engineering degree. please provide the school name and the year of graduation. and just what kind of experience do you have in the anatomy and physiology of the eye that you feel empowered to give people advise here? you know this forum is about "science", "medicine" and "vision" and you have training and experience in NONE of these topics. and can you explain why your niece Joy, who followed your plus prevention recommendation just as you claim everyone should, has still developed myopia and now has a restriction on her drivers license so that she must use the "wretched minus" so she can see clearly in the distance? does her vision get worse and worse every year at 0.50 diopters per year as you tell us it will? how come her situation doesn't resemble AT ALL what you tell everyone will happen unless they follow your recommendations? do you have a problem admitting you are wrong? do you have a problem talking DIRECTLY to people rather than just cutting and running like you always do? > In article <1181532896.732896.5...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > My point is that someone could be a competent professional in younger > days, but have major problems in some ways in later life. you are correct. perhaps this is the situation with Otis. Dear PClar, Stick to the SUBJECT! This issue was about a false poster. Funny that you launch into your "mantra" Otis On Jun 10, 11:34 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 10, 11:10 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Jun 10, 8:54 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear PClar, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Otis Actually, that wasn't the subject until you tried to MAKE IT the subject. Dan's right. Otis has gone way over the deep end. It's not ad hominem, Dave. I actually frequently consider it sad/ tragic/pathetic, but ... it doesn't mean he has carte blanche to hurt people. On Jun 10, 11:54 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear PClar, > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - yet when i try to converse with you about a topic you post about in a different thread you just ignor me. so i must try to "get in front of you" when i find you belching-out your rhetoric in another thread. okay, then you go back to all the threads where i have tried to ask you for clarification, or asked you to provide supporting evidence for the advise you give, and respond. if you just want to continue to dodge direct questions and instead just fart-out your unfounded opinions when innocent people post on another topic i feel compelled to illustrate clearly to everyone what kind of a person you really are. a fraud and a charlatan. |
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.