 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2007People Who Annoy Us in Newsgroups
People whose messages annoy us are encouraged when they see that we are annoyed. I believe that if we ignore them, they will go away. So instead of flaming, how about hitting N or put them in a kill file or just chill out? > People whose messages annoy us are encouraged when they see that we are > annoyed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So instead of flaming, how about hitting N or put them in a kill file or > just chill out? Good idea but it seems that over the years a bunch of who can't help themselves give most of their attention to the trolls and those with quack theories. It is a shame they won't just use their kill file. Even though they are well meaning they contribute almost as much noise to the group as the nuts.  SignatureCharles >> People whose messages annoy us are encouraged when they see that we are >> annoyed. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > though they are well meaning they contribute almost as much noise to > the group as the nuts. Far more noise, in my opinion. And that's when the troll baiters become trollish, themselves... Dave >but it seems that over the years a bunch of who can't help >themselves give most of their attention to the trolls *hint*Neil Brooks*hint hint* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - AE >but it seems that over the years a bunch of who can't help >themselves give most of their attention to the trolls *hint*Neil Crooks and his camp followers*hint hint* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - AE > >but it seems that over the years a bunch of who can't help > >themselves give most of their attention to the trolls [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant > and has forgotten the gift." - AE hello Kaze / Revival / whatever your newest name is! look Dave, Andre, Charles, and whomever. we are way beyond what you propose to do-- i.e. ignor the trolls and they go away. as they say, "been there, done that". but we have a special troll here. he will go unnamed but anyone who has been around this forum for awhile knows who he is. he doesn't just post so he can have a thrill from seeing his name on the internet, he actually posts medical recommendations to people that can do them harm. he draws down the wrath of many upon him and to some it may seem unfair and inappropriate but the facts are -- he can and has actually hurt people with his therapeutic recommendations. we are talking about peoples vision here and damage can and has be done! so while we hawk this special troll on this newsgroup so that any unsuspecting newbies with real eye problems will come to recognize him for what he is, the medical licensing authorities in the state where he lives have also been alerted so we have taken a more conventional route as well. i appreciate that you are pointing out that feeding a troll only tends to make them stick around longer, and that is true for many of them-- like the one who has recently come to this forum and who uses many names (Kaze, WH Bates, Zetsu, Revival, and the posting in this very thread with no name associated with it). we all understand that but the real problem here is a different person who is not a standard internet troll but instead a sicko who fancies himself as a righteous misunderstood savior of peoples vision but instead can actually harm them-- he requires a different tact. just so you understand. and thanks for your advice. there is nothing that anyone here would like more than to see this unnamed person go away once and for all at which time everything would become more sane immediately and instead this newsgroup would be more straight forward questions and answers, food for thought, healthy debate, etc. p clar, >but we have a special troll here. he will >go unnamed but anyone who has been >around this forum for awhile knows who he is. Oh please... a 'special' troll, eh...? Save your breath!! >he requires a different tact. No, he requires no different tact at all. It's not rocket science here, you just IGNORE him. You just can't seem to resist yourselves but try to ridicule Otis in a way that makes you look 'cool'. Well guess what, the only person who looks ridiculous is yourself, especially when you are JUST as trollish as Otis himself. Your ad- hominem attacks are of benefit to NO ONE. Oh and another thing... Would you PLEASE stop trying to get Otis to answer your questions. He WON'T answer them. We've established this over the past 7 YEARS, if you've been living under some sort of rock for all this time. Now give it up already. The only thing that happens is that you end up pi$$ing off the thousands of viewers who come to this newsgroup every day. We do not need to here any more of this bull$hit, and your silly, tired old excuses. The ONLY reason you keep attacking Otis, is because you want to gain some sort of 'reputation' for yourself on this group, and you want to look 'cool' to your friend Neil. We KNOW that Otis won't answer your questions, so DON'T even bother. You truly are a fool if you cannot understand this. >we are way beyond what you propose to do You are beyond nothing. As I understand it, this very same 'proposal' took place a few years back. Back then, the decided action was that every week, one person would post a 'Welcome to sci.med.vision' message. The person who was selected to carry out this job is 'The Real Bev'. *You* and your puny irritating insect friend Neil, were _not_ selected to carry out this job. The purpose of the message was to get newbies to think for themselves, decide for themselves, whether Otis can possibly be correct. And it *has*, despite what you think about others, proven to have faithfully carried out that job. Now if a relatively young and inexperienced 15 year old kid like me, and other people like Dave Bell here, are able to decide things for ourselves, then what on earth makes you think you have the right to do other people's thinking for them? You have no right whatsoever to do this. You are all hypocrites who complain about other people polluting the forum, yet you are the very people who are the polluters. I find it rather insulting that Neil chooses to call us youthes 'vulnerable'. >From what I've seen in the childish arguments that seem to enjoy taking place here, we are NO less intelligent than you grown ups. If anything, dear old chap Neil here has shown less maturity than that of a typical 7 year old child. And I find it insulting that Neil and his chum buds have decided to think for others, especially seeing as they are not too great thinkers themselves. Now PLEASE, either you can shut up and stop complaining, or use a kill-file. Thank you. p clar, >but we have a special troll here. he will >go unnamed but anyone who has been >around this forum for awhile knows who he is. Oh please... a 'special' troll, eh...? Save your breath!! >he requires a different tact. No, he requires no different tact at all. It's not rocket science here, you just IGNORE him. You just can't seem to resist yourselves but try to ridicule Otis in a way that makes you look 'cool'. Well guess what, the only person who looks ridiculous is yourself, especially when you are JUST as trollish as Otis himself. Your ad- hominem attacks are of benefit to NO ONE. Oh and another thing... Would you PLEASE stop trying to get Otis to answer your questions. He WON'T answer them. We've established this over the past 7 YEARS, if you've been living under some sort of rock for all this time. Now give it up already. The only thing that happens is that you end up pi$$ing off the thousands of viewers who come to this newsgroup every day. We do not need to here any more of this bull$hit, and your silly, tired old excuses. The ONLY reason you keep attacking Otis, is because you want to gain some sort of 'reputation' for yourself on this group, and you want to look 'cool' to your friend Neil. We KNOW that Otis won't answer your questions, so DON'T even bother. You truly are a fool if you cannot understand this. >we are way beyond what you propose to do You are beyond nothing. As I understand it, this very same 'proposal' took place a few years back. Back then, the decided action was that every week, one person would post a 'Welcome to sci.med.vision' message. The person who was selected to carry out this job is 'The Real Bev'. *You* and your puny irritating insect friend Neil, were _not_ selected to carry out this job. The purpose of the message was to get newbies to think for themselves, decide for themselves, whether Otis can possibly be correct. And it *has*, despite what you think about others, proven to have faithfully carried out that job. Now if a relatively young and inexperienced 15 year old kid like me, and other people like Dave Bell here, are able to decide things for ourselves, then what on earth makes you think you have the right to do other people's thinking for them? You have no right whatsoever to do this. You are all hypocrites who complain about other people polluting the forum, yet you are the very people who are the polluters. I find it rather insulting that Neil chooses to call us youthes 'vulnerable'. >From what I've seen in the childish arguments that seem to enjoy taking place here, we are NO less intelligent than you grown ups. If anything, dear old chap Neil here has shown less maturity than that of a typical 7 year old child. And I find it insulting that Neil and his chum buds have decided to think for others, especially seeing as they are not too great thinkers themselves. Now PLEASE, either you can shut up, put up, and stop complaining -- or you can use a kill-file. Thank you. Zetsu p clar, >but we have a special troll here. he will >go unnamed but anyone who has been >around this forum for awhile knows who he is. Oh please... a 'special' troll, eh...? Save your breath!! >he requires a different tact. No, he requires no different tact at all. It's not rocket science here, you just IGNORE him. You just can't seem to resist yourselves but try to ridicule Otis in a way that makes you look 'cool'. Well guess what, the only person who looks ridiculous is yourself, especially when you are JUST as trollish as Otis himself. Your ad- hominem attacks are of benefit to NO ONE. Oh and another thing... Would you PLEASE stop trying to get Otis to answer your questions. He WON'T answer them. We've established this over the past 7 YEARS, if you've been living under some sort of rock for all this time. Now give it up already. The only thing that happens is that you end up pi$$ing off the thousands of viewers who come to this newsgroup every day. We do not need to here any more of this bull$hit, and your silly, tired old excuses. The ONLY reason you keep attacking Otis, is because you want to gain some sort of 'reputation' for yourself on this group, and you want to look 'cool' to your friend Neil. We KNOW that Otis won't answer your questions, so DON'T even bother. You truly are a fool if you cannot understand this. >we are way beyond what you propose to do You are beyond nothing. As I understand it, this very same 'proposal' took place a few years back. Back then, the decided action was that every week, one person would post a 'Welcome to sci.med.vision' message. The person who was selected to carry out this job is 'The Real Bev'. *You* and your puny irritating insect friend Neil, were _not_ selected to carry out this job. The purpose of the message was to get newbies to think for themselves, decide for themselves, whether Otis can possibly be correct. And it *has*, despite what you think about others, proven to have faithfully carried out that job. Now if a relatively young and inexperienced 15 year old kid like me, and other people like Dave Bell here, are able to decide things for ourselves, then what on earth makes you think you have the right to do other people's thinking for them? You have no right whatsoever to do this. You are all hypocrites who complain about other people polluting the forum, yet you are the very people who are the polluters. I find it rather insulting that Neil chooses to call us youthes 'vulnerable'. >From what I've seen in the childish arguments that seem to enjoy taking place here, we are NO less intelligent than you grown ups. If anything, dear old chap Neil here has shown less maturity than that of a typical 7 year old child. And I find it insulting that Neil and his chum buds have decided to think for others, especially seeing as they are not too great thinkers themselves. Now PLEASE, either you can shut up and stop complaining, or use a kill-file. Thank you. Zetsu p clar, >but we have a special troll here. he will >go unnamed but anyone who has been >around this forum for awhile knows who he is. Oh please... a 'special' troll, eh...? Save your breath!! >he requires a different tact. No, he requires no different tact at all. It's not rocket science here, you just IGNORE him. You just can't seem to resist yourselves but try to ridicule Otis in a way that makes you look 'cool'. Well guess what, the only person who looks ridiculous is yourself, especially when you are JUST as trollish as Otis himself. Your ad- hominem attacks are of benefit to NO ONE. Oh and another thing... Would you PLEASE stop trying to get Otis to answer your questions. He WON'T answer them. We've established this over the past 7 YEARS, if you've been living under some sort of rock for all this time. Now give it up already. The only thing that happens is that you end up pi$$ing off the thousands of viewers who come to this newsgroup every day. We do not need to here any more of this bull$hit, and your silly, tired old excuses. The ONLY reason you keep attacking Otis, is because you want to gain some sort of 'reputation' for yourself on this group, and you want to look 'cool' to your friend Neil. We KNOW that Otis won't answer your questions, so DON'T even bother. You truly are a fool if you cannot understand this. >we are way beyond what you propose to do You are beyond nothing. As I understand it, this very same 'proposal' took place a few years back. Back then, the decided action was that every week, one person would post a 'Welcome to sci.med.vision' message. The person who was selected to carry out this job is 'The Real Bev'. *You* and your puny irritating insect friend Neil, were _not_ selected to carry out this job. The purpose of the message was to get newbies to think for themselves, decide for themselves, whether Otis can possibly be correct. And it *has*, despite what you think about others, proven to have faithfully carried out that job. Now if a relatively young and inexperienced 15 year old kid like me, and other people like Dave Bell here, are able to decide things for ourselves, then what on earth makes you think you have the right to do other people's thinking for them? You have no right whatsoever to do this. You are all hypocrites who complain about other people polluting the forum, yet you are the very people who are the polluters. I find it rather insulting that Neil chooses to call us youthes 'vulnerable'. >From what I've seen in the childish arguments that seem to enjoy taking place here, we are NO less intelligent than you grown ups. If anything, dear old chap Neil here has shown less maturity than that of a typical 7 year old child. And I find it insulting that Neil and his chum buds have decided to think for others, especially seeing as they are not too great thinkers themselves. Now PLEASE, either you can shut up and stop complaining, or you can use a bloody kill-file. Simple as. Zetsu p clar, >but we have a special troll here. he will >go unnamed but anyone who has been >around this forum for awhile knows who he is. Oh please... a 'special' troll, eh...? Save your breath!! >he requires a different tact. No, he requires no different tact at all. It's not rocket science here, you just IGNORE him. You just can't seem to resist yourselves but try to ridicule Otis in a way that makes you look 'cool'. Well guess what, the only person who looks ridiculous is yourself, especially when you are JUST as trollish as Otis himself. Your ad- hominem attacks are of benefit to NO ONE. Oh and another thing... Would you PLEASE stop trying to get Otis to answer your questions. He WON'T answer them. We've established this over the past 7 YEARS, if you've been living under some sort of rock for all this time. Now give it up already. The only thing that happens is that you end up pi$$ing off the thousands of viewers who come to this newsgroup every day. We do not need to here any more of this bull$hit, and your silly, tired old excuses. The ONLY reason you keep attacking Otis, is because you want to gain some sort of 'reputation' for yourself on this group, and you want to look 'cool' to your friend Neil. We KNOW that Otis won't answer your questions, so DON'T even bother. You truly are a fool if you cannot understand this. >we are way beyond what you propose to do You are beyond nothing. As I understand it, this very same 'proposal' took place a few years back. Back then, the decided action was that every week, one person would post a 'Welcome to sci.med.vision' message. The person who was selected to carry out this job is 'The Real Bev'. The purpose of the message was to get the newbies that come here to think a little for themselves, decide for themselves, whether the plus lens theory can be correct. And it *has*, despite what you think about others, proven to have faithfully carried out its job. If the person from here on, then decides FOR HIMSELF that he will give the plus lens therapy a try, then HE ALONE has made that decision, and YOU can do NOTHING to alter his/her decision. Whatever happens from then on, whatever crazy polyopia double triple quadrouple vision he ends up getting, that is HIS FAULT, and it is not YOUR responsibility. And STOP trying to pretend that it is your responsibility. You just PI$$ everyone off by even trying it on. That is a FACT. *You* and your puny irritating insect friend Neil, are not required to 'warn the newbs'. We have a message devoted to that VERY purpose.*You* are making no difference AT ALL by simply 'feeding the troll'. The only thing you are doing is ADDING to the noise. WHAT will it take to make you realize that...? Now if a relatively young and inexperienced 15 year old kid like me, and other people like Dave Bell here, are able to decide things for ourselves, then what on earth makes you think you have the right to do other people's thinking for them? You have no right whatsoever to do this. You are all hypocrites who complain about other people polluting the forum, yet you are the very people who are the polluters. I find it rather insulting that Neil chooses to call us youthes 'vulnerable'. from what I've seen in the childish arguments that seem to enjoy taking place here, we are NO less intelligent than you grown ups. If anything, dear old chap Neil here has shown less maturity than that of a typical 7 year old child. And I find it insulting that Neil and his chum buds have decided to think for others, especially seeing as they are not too great thinkers themselves. Now PLEASE, either you can shut up and stop complaining, or you can use a bloody kill-file. Simple as. Zetsu Good visual hygiene also dictates that I don't waste my eyes reading your spew. Long story short, though: nobody here is trying to think FOR anybody (, you idiot). What people here HAVE decided is worthwhile is to let people know that they're dealing with a harmful, misinformed, probably mentally ill (literally) zealot. It actually takes a lot of respect for the intelligence of the potential posters to presume that -- given our continued questioning, and Uncle (scr)Otis's unwillingness to answer those questions -- perhaps they should be leery of him and HIS followers. Others hold the belief that whatever harm befalls somebody who took medical advice from the Internet is just too bad. Most of us have consciences, and disagree. And as to your naive, adolescent notion that anybody here is anybody else's "follower--" as always--you're simply unenlightened. Many people here care about the welfare of others. Nobody's looking to "see their name in print." Everybody's simply sick and tired of Uncle (scr)Otis (and his retinue) and knows all too well that his posting habits have NEVER been affected by whether or not people choose to respond. What we HAVE seen is that--when people do NOT respond--Uncle (scr)Otis can pull the unsuspecting myope into his web (site) ... where he stands to do them harm. You're a soulless creature who's already drunk the Kool-Aid, so I presume that you're not the audience for THIS post, either, but .... it's for all the others ... who DO still think for themselves. Kisses. >Long story short, though: nobody here is trying to think FOR anybody Good point -- why bother trying to think for anybody else, when you can't even think for yourself, eh Neil? > What people here HAVE decided is worthwhile is to let >people know that they're dealing with a harmful, misinformed, probably >mentally ill (literally) zealot. Ah, but -- that never was decided -- except by you and your camp followers. What people here DID decide, was that every week a welcome message would be posted advising members to make an INFORMED decision for themselves. The whole purpose of that message was so that there would be no need for more troll feeders (like you). >It actually takes a lot of respect for the intelligence of the >potential posters to presume that -- given our continued questioning, >and Uncle (scr)Otis's unwillingness to answer those questions -- >perhaps they should be leery of him and HIS followers. Actually, it takes more respect for the intelligence of potential posters -- to realize that they are not mindless fools who are unable to rationalize or make decisions. Surely? >Many people here care about the welfare of others. >Nobody's looking to "see their name in print." Whatever, Neil. Deny it as much as you want, make as many excuses as you want, you *do* just like to see your name in print. I already knew that you are just a stuck up, silly old man who needs to get over himself. No need to prove it over and over. Just because your own foolishness lead your current vision health into complete shambles, doesn't mean other people are as stupid as you are and will make the same mistakes. >Others hold the belief that whatever harm befalls somebody who took >medical advice from the Internet is just too bad. Most of us have >consciences, and disagree. Er, most of us have *intelligence*, and disagree. Although --as usual-- you wouldn't be too familiar with that sort of thing. >Everybody's simply sick and tired of Uncle (scr)Otis (and his retinue) Actually, most of us are simply sick of you (and your retinue). >and knows all too well that his posting habits have NEVER been >affected by whether or not people choose to respond. Of course we know that his posting habits have never been affected, you idiot. That's not the point. The point is that you are only ADDING to the NOISE. You seem unable to Un-Der-Stand that. If you just let things be, just kill filed Otis, sure, it wouldn't make a difference to HIM. But it WOULD make a difference to this newsgroup. RT was RIGHT when he said that this newsgroup has gone downhill since last year -- and we have you to thank for it, Neil. Sure enough -- according to you -- I have trolled around a bit on this newsgroup. But that is *nothing* compared to the damage you have caused to this place. >How do you think these "children" have come here? Have you considered >that Uncle Otis 'enlists' them on other websites to come to his >defense against perceived attacks by those who don't believe as he >does? >That's how they come here. Ponder no longer. You are a paranoid old man who needs to get a life. >Have you considered that this same Uncle Otis constantly engages these >kids--kids who are clearly under the Age of Majority (if not the Age >of Reason), providing medical advice that has significant risk of >harming them--potentially permanently? He uses classic brainwashing >techniques to steer them /away/ from eye doctors and keep them "under >his spell." You silly old douchebag. The only person who has been 'brainwashed' here is you -- brainwashed by your own ignorance and paranoia. >Kisses. I already knew you were a silly old paranoid man Don't tell me you're a pervert, too? > What people here DID decide, was that every week a welcome message > would be posted advising members to make an INFORMED decision for > themselves. The whole purpose of that message was so that there would > be no need for more troll feeders (like you). But newcomers drop by, post a message, and read ONLY the responses TO THEIR message. The "weekly post" is a good idea, but ineffective. > >It actually takes a lot of respect for the intelligence of the > >potential posters to presume that -- given our continued questioning, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > posters -- to realize that they are not mindless fools who are unable > to rationalize or make decisions. Surely? You don't have to be a "mindless fool" to be taken in by overly simplistic advice--especially when you're afraid and can't separate the wheat from the chaff. >But newcomers drop by, post a message, and read ONLY the responses TO >THEIR message. The "weekly post" is a good idea, but ineffective. Ah but, is that so? I know that *I* happened to read the 'welcome to sci.med.vision' post, when *I* first came here. Don't know how many people *you* are speaking for, though. >You don't have to be a "mindless fool" to be >taken in by overly simplistic advice- Er, yes you do. Let me put it this way for you. Imagine you've recently bought a car, and you desperately need to cover it with some car insurance. And then imagine you see a car advert on the T.V. that says 'unbeatable price, wow, guaranteed satisfaction!' -- do you jump up and down, say 'HOORAY', and go straight out and buy it? No, you don't. Indeed, you are a desperate person,but that doesn't turn you into a mindless fool. >especially when you're afraid and can't separate >the wheat from the chaff. Really, Neil? I know that there was once a time (a couple of years back) when I was unbelievably desperate, I was crying, praying, everything - for my eye disorders to go away - and then I found this newsgroup and happened to read some of Otis's posts about plus lens therapy and what not - did I lose my rationality at this point? No, I did not lose my ability to 'separate the wheat from the chaff'. If anything, my fear INCREASED my wariness. Now I was just your average child, nothing extra ordinary, no crazy high IQ level - just a plain simple layman. But my rationality did not falter. And so your point just doesn't stand here... Summary: if it did or did not happen to you, then it will or will not happen to anybody else either. Sadly, your hypothesis is contradicted by fact--fact that's been witnessed on s.m.v. numerous times in the past. Theories must be modified of abandoned when the facts are contradicted by compelling evidence. You and your Uncle seem to have great difficulty with that notion. Also, you may want to talk with Uncle (scr)Otis about your little comment: > Just because your own foolishness lead your current vision health into > complete shambles, doesn't mean other people are as stupid as you are > and will make the same mistakes. For his were the dreams (of being a commercial pilot) that were so roundly dashed by progressive myopia. >Theories must be modified of abandoned when >the facts are contradicted by compelling evidence. Indeed, they must. The only entity which seems to have difficulty with that notion, is you. I have proven to myself that cure by relaxation is possible, no matter how bad the condition of my eyes. I have read about your current state, Neil, but believe me, it was *nothing* compared to the state of my vision. I, along with my younger brother who has also been cured, now have perfect, 20/10 vision. I have proven to myself that there are many theories which should be abandoned, seeing as my own experience of compelling evidence contradicts the majority opinion on ophthalmics -- but, well, that's a whole other discussion -- and I won't start prattling to you about the miracles of Dr.Bates - since you people obviously won't want to see truth from fallacy. > The only entity which seems to have difficulty with that notion, is > you. Well, there's that whole bunch of surgeons and pediatricians and vision scientists, but, hey. > I have proven to myself that cure by relaxation is possible, no > matter how bad the condition of my eyes. And so it follows what works for you must work for everybody else. > I have proven to myself that there are many theories which should be > abandoned, seeing as my own experience of compelling evidence > contradicts the majority opinion on ophthalmics The newest trend - anecdote-based medicine. -- but, well, that's a > whole other discussion -- and I won't start prattling to you about the > miracles of Dr.Bates - since you people obviously won't want to see > truth from fallacy. "Yet it is to-day a perfectly well-known and undisputed fact that many persons, after the removal of the lens for cataract, are able to see perfectly at different distances without any change in their glasses." -MT > >Theories must be modified of abandoned when > >the facts are contradicted by compelling evidence. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > miracles of Dr.Bates - since you people obviously won't want to see > truth from fallacy. You sound sincere and intellingent on this thread. However, until now you have been the real troll who was playing idiotic games here, with multiple screen names and styles. Your actions here have been similar in nature to those of spammers or (more likely) of virus senders. If anybody seemed to be enjoying the attention and causing noise, it was YOU. OK, now you have decided (perhaps) to be semi-sincere for a few minutes under the "zitsu" identity. But if you want anybody to believe your recent attempts, why don't you tell us about your personal experience with your vision problem and your eventual salvation? I still believe that this is just another stunt of you, seeking attention and control. Please prove me wrong, quit the games and come forward straight and honest. Stick with one name and never, never, NEVER, blame people for their problems with vision, regardless of what your personal experience has been. As a side note, there is a great tendency of people to believe in all kinds of miracle cures. Faith healing is probably as old as humanity and is a central component in most religions, including christianity. But wishful thinking does not make it true, nor does a subjective anecdotal report of miraculous occurance. In order to separate the wheat from the chaff you must employ scientific methods and scrutiny, and this is what this forum is all about. Dear Zetsu, Subject: Majority-opinion studies -- and their consequence Otis> I strongly support the concept that an effort should be made by second-opinion people to PREVENT entry into myopia. Otis> I support the concept that these people be given a trial-lens kit, a Snellen, and support from parents and child to conduct this work. Otis> But to this very day -- this effort has always been blocked by the majority-opinion ODs and MDs. I think this is just wrong. Otis> I believe there was only one study run by majority-opinion ODs -- not to prove and support Bates-prevention, but rather to DESTROY the concept of Bates prevention. That way, these majority-opinion people could say, "...see, we 'attempted' Bates and it does not work". ============ Bates Advocate> I have to wonder what you've been looking at, if you haven't found any evidence of people reducing their myopia, but I've heard that before, and in the past such research has shown to consist mainly of just searching PubMed. So you've contacted multiple Bates teachers to see what kind of records they keep, right? And you've taken lessons yourself, right? Because those would be my first steps, if It were going to research something. Not that they'll be willing to undermine their clients' privacy to have some guy pester their clients who doesn't believe that they got much benefit from the method, but it's at least the first step. =============== Otis> As both of use know, there are people who check their Snellen at say 20/70, and by diligent work, SLOWLY clear it to 20/60, then 20/50, then 20/40, then 20/30, and finally 20/20. Otis> But they are FORCED to do this themselves because: 1. The work is hard. 2. The work requires consider "will" to do it and 3. Most people do not value their distant vision -- to make the effort to keep their distant vision clear through the school years. Otis> Both of us know of people who have done this vision clearing (by various second-opinion methods). Otis> For the person who does this, passes the DMV (under published VA requirements), there is no longer any question about it. Otis> So that type of success simply takes the issue out of "medicine" and places true responsibility into the person himself. Otis> But I still say that this work can be better organized, if you keep the majority-opinon people away from this type of study. A SUCCESSFUL study would show the true failure of the minus lens as a "solution". Otis> The majority-opinion ODs have already declared that they are "Gods" so issues of scientific fact do not concern them. Just one man's opinion. Otis > >But newcomers drop by, post a message, and read ONLY the responses TO > >THEIR message. The "weekly post" is a good idea, but ineffective. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > simple layman. But my rationality did not falter. And so your point > just doesn't stand here... On Jun 18, 10:37 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Otis> But to this very day -- this effort has always > been blocked by the majority-opinion ODs and MDs. > I think this is just wrong. Nobody is actively "blocking" anything, Uncle Otie. If you believe they are, can you please provide some evidence of that? Perhaps they just don't have any evidence of safety or efficacy (the standard in the US), and/or have evidence of LACK of safety or efficacy. Unwillingness to advocate unproven, or disproven, concepts is VERY different from actively "blocking" something. Except to you. On Jun 18, 10:37 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Zetsu, > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Otis This is yet another example of what Otis does repeatedly -- He hijacks threads to preach his voodoo. No need to call him idiot, his posts say it more clearly and loudly. > On Jun 18, 10:37 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > threads to preach his voodoo. No need to call him idiot, his posts > say it more clearly and loudly. oh come on. aren't you looking forward to hearing what raphaelson had to say in "the printer's son"? > Otis> I strongly support the concept that an effort should be > made by second-opinion people to PREVENT entry into > myopia. And I support the concept that spraying repellent around my yard PREVENTS elephants from trampling my posies. It works! You have a right to know! > Otis> I support the concept that these people be given > a trial-lens kit, a Snellen, and support from parents > and child to conduct this work. So these parents you're helping will spend $800 for equipment to do - what? > Otis> But to this very day -- this effort has always > been blocked by the majority-opinion ODs and MDs. > I think this is just wrong. And they think YOU are wrong. Every man is an authority in his own eyes. > Otis> I believe there was only one study run > by majority-opinion ODs -- not to prove and > support Bates-prevention, but rather to > DESTROY the concept of Bates prevention. And we are all entitled to your belief. Over and over. > That way, these majority-opinion people could > say, "...see, we 'attempted' Bates and it does not work". Which technique are you talking about? Sunning? Central fixation? Imagining perfect black? Which of Bates' recommendations do you find most effective in reducing myopia? > Otis> As both of use know, there are people who check their Snellen > at > say 20/70, and by diligent work, SLOWLY clear it to 20/60, then > 20/50, then 20/40, then 20/30, and finally 20/20. And there are also people who SLOWLY improve without benefit of any Snellen chart. > 3. Most people do not value their distant vision -- to > make the effort to keep their distant vision clear > through the school years. So its THEIR fault they got nearsighted? > Otis> Both of us know of people who have done this > vision clearing (by various second-opinion methods). And those who have done it with no method at all. > Otis> For the person who does this, passes the DMV > (under published VA requirements), there is no longer any > question about it. So anecdotes are enough evidence for you. > Otis> So that type of success simply takes the issue > out of "medicine" and places true responsibility > into the person himself. Ah.. it isn't the doctor's fault - it's the 9-YEAR-OLD CHILD who is to blame for getting myopic. -MT On Jun 18, 1:37 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > places true responsibility > into the person himself. so it was Joy's fault that she became myopic even though she faithfully followed her uncle Otis' recommendations and wore "the plus" as a child-- right? you are so ready to stand up and take credit for every reduction in myopia that occurs within 10 feet of a pair of plus readers, but you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any failure when your methods doesn't work! quite objective of you Otis, Engineer. or are you really an engineer? what school did you graduate from and what year was your graduating class? I truly doubt that anyone as irrational as you really is/was an engineer. unless dementia has set in, which is quite possible. Dear Zetsu, Good analysis -- well written. This is how you should ALWAYS be informed of the preventive second-opinion. I take plus-prevention or Bates-prevention as the second-opinion, and you have a right to KNOW about it, when it could be effective for you. You have the right to turn it down, and nothing is lost. But these majority-opinion believe that if a minus quick-fix works (impressively in five minutes) you have no right to an informed, competent choice. And, by the way, Galileo did "annoy" the people and church of his day. Because they KNEW he had to be WRONG. Otis > p clar, > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Zetsu > I take plus-prevention or Bates-prevention as the second-opinion, > and you have a right to KNOW about it, when > it could be effective for you. We have a right to know about Laetrile, Noni juice and aspartame too. Please tell us more. -MT On Jun 18, 11:28 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > And, by the way, Galileo did "annoy" the people > and church of his day. Because they > KNEW he had to be WRONG. > > Otis another example of mental illness. otis is so delusional that he likens himself, and his situation, to that of Galileo. > This is how you should ALWAYS be informed > of the preventive second-opinion. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You have the right to turn it down, and nothing is lost. of course everyone has the right to know about Bates, plus lenses, sunning, and whatever else is out there. no one is preventing anyone from knowing about alternative ideas that people have proposed. what we DO have a problem with is someone claiming that these methods actually work, or that they are even therapeutically "in the ballpark" to using standard refractive optical vision correction. the facts are clear-- NOTHING ELSE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO WORK, AND MOST OF WHAT YOU PROPOSE AS "SECOND OPINION" HAS BEEN CLEARLY DISPROVEN IN MULTIPLE SCIENTIFIC TRIALS. and you know we have all the citations and publications to prove that. quit trying to pretend that your rights to free speech are being violated. what you try to tell people is just a flat-out lie and thats why everyone except other wackos oppose you. you are a fanatic fringe-dwelling sicko. take Kaze/Zetsu/WH Bates/Revival or whatever his name-of-the-day is and go back to your little alternative medicine forum where people really understand exactly what they are getting when they go there. what you say about vision has nothing to do with the science and medicine and thus is inappropriate here. Thus far, you have an opinion, buttressed by anecdotal information, ancient studies (in terms of scientific progress), and one of those studies (Young) has certain flaws in them which render them useless for your cause. Rather than accept defeat, you continue to serve up the same arguments so as to keep the debate going for any newbies who happen to wander in. Somewhat foolishly, we keep arguing with you as though there is any merit, when in fact we are lending it a credibility it doesn't deserve. Just my opinion. And likely the opinion of most sane people around here. p slar, Your last line is important. It IS foolish to argue with someone who argues points that have no validity, It IS foolish and useless to argue with someone who will not admit defeat in the face of clear rationale that leads no other direction. There is no merit in Otis' arguments and therefore no merit in your continuing to argue with him. > p slar, > > Your last line is important. I Why is it that pslar shares an email address with you? Are you really all Otis? SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > > p slar, > > > Your last line is important. I > > Why is it that pslar shares an email address with you? Are you really all > Otis? Can't be Otis. Otis can't spell, is limited in his ideas and lacks any sense of humor. p clar, Your last line is important. It is foolish to argue with someone who argues points that have no validity, It is foolish and useless to argue with someone who will not admit defeat in the face of clear rationale that leads no other direction. There is no merit in Otis' arguments and therefore no merit in your continuing to argue with him. -Itachi p clar, Your last line is important. It is foolish to argue with someone who argues points that have no validity, It is foolish and useless to argue with someone who will not admit defeat in the face of clear rationale that leads no other direction. There is no merit in Otis' arguments and therefore no merit in your continuing to argue with him. > p clar, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > arguments and therefore no merit in your continuing to argue with > him. hello Revival, so we will add p.slar and itachi to the long list of screen names that you like to post under. and why do you like otis engineer so much? > p clar, > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Zetsu i guess this troll is the "child" that everyone should be so careful in addressing. p.clarkii@gmail.com keyed the following on 6/18/2007 7:59 AM: >>> but it seems that over the years a bunch of who can't help >>> themselves give most of their attention to the trolls [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > recommendations. we are talking about peoples vision here and damage > can and has be done! There's no way to block him? > p.clar...@gmail.com keyed the following on 6/18/2007 7:59 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > There's no way to block him? >> we are talking about peoples vision here and damage >> can and has be done! Blocking him is easy. Sleeping soundly at night, knowing that we might have prevented him from hurting people ... well, that's another challenge. > There's no way to block him? its quite easy to block his posts from appearing in our newsreaders, but blocking him from giving unsuspecting people false information when they search out this forum to ask a question about their child's vision is difficult. what would you suggest? as I said, he has already been reported to the medical licensing authorities in the state where he lives. people who know about him just blow him off as just another internet crackpot but i have seen innocent sincere people who are looking for help being misled by this guy. |
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.