 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2007Uncle Otie? Why do you lie so??
[quote] Summary: When presented with objective facts, (Eskimo data, primate data) that prove objectively that the fundamental eye is dynamic, PClar must push the data off the table and claim that, "it does not exist", and trust me, and not yourself and your own judgment. That is EXACTLY the problem. Otis [/quote] Now that's just a bald-faced lie. Why must you lie so??? At some point, wouldn't you think that enough was enough?? I know I do. X-No-Archive: Neil DBG Brooks -- why not provide the full quote. PClar has his majority-opinion, that denies the second-opinion, that the fundamental eye is a dynamic SYSTEM, and under REASONBLE circumstances a negative refractive STATE could be PREVENTED. I suggest that PClar is in a state of "Cognitive Dissonance as described below. (With all due respect. We disagree on fundamental facts, and the INTERPERTATION of those facts. Nothing else.) =============== Subject: PClar: Naturally, Never Wrong. Re: Cognitive dissonance Definition: Psychological conflictr resulting from symultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes. "Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me).", book by Tarvis and Aronson. Summary: When presented with objective facts, (Eskimo data, primate data) that prove objectively that the fundamental eye is dynamic, PClar must push the data off the table and claim that, "it does not exist", and trust me, and not yourself and your own judgment. That is EXACTLY the problem. Otis ++++++++ > [quote] > Summary: When presented with objective facts, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I know I do. >Neil DBG Brooks -- why not provide the full quote. Awwwwwww, damn! You slipped back into adding letters to my name. Just when I thought we were making progress, too. Did you CALL David Granet yet (858-534-2020) to verify whether or not he is me and I am he?? Couldn't you -- just ONCE in your life -- take a look at the FACTS in a situation before clinging so desperately to your conclusion?? Just once?? The rest or your post is irrelevant. You lied about PCLark's position as you lie about what MOST people around here say. Isn't there ANYTHING in your constitutional make-up that tells you that this incessant lying is wrong? Do you think that Galileo would respect your constant dishonesty? I highly doubt it. Don't you? >Did you CALL David Granet yet (858-534-2020) lol I hope this is not his home number! It's very hard restraining myself when it comes to prank phone calls!! :P *dials...* X-No-Archive: Good, so far, Neil David Brooks, Now, could you give us your phone number, and an exact idea of your profession? Just to get an idea of your background for the advice you constantly provide on sci.med.vision. Otis Did you CALL David Granet yet (858-534-2020) to verify whether or not he is me and I am he?? Couldn't you -- just ONCE in your life -- take a look at the FACTS in a situation before clinging so desperately to your conclusion?? > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:43:27 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net" > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Don't you? >Good, so far, Neil David Brooks, As I've asked you before, what sort of perverse pleasure do you derive by using my middle name on this forum? >Now, could you give us your phone number, and an >exact idea of your profession? Oh, Otis. Why don't YOU start by answering THESE questions: www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt You never have, you know. I'm sure it's because you'd be exposed as an idiot if you actually DID answer them. They cut right to the heart of your dishonesty, faulty logic, twisted statistics, and errors of omission. But ... just for $hits and giggles ... why not answer them? >Just to get an idea of your background for the advice >you constantly provide on sci.med.vision. Gosh, Uncle Otie. I didn't realize that I "constantly provide" ANY sort of advice on sci.med.vision. In fact, this is basically my philosophy for my participation in this forum: 1) I started on this forum wayyyy back when. 2) When I know something, I contribute. 3) When I don't know something, I keep my mouth shut. 4) I don't come here merely to bash eye doctors. 5) My dreams of becoming a commercial pilot weren't dashed by myopia. I DO have vision problems, but I don't pathologically blame them on some concocted story that gives me a devil to despise. 6) I follow logic, rational thinking, critical thinking, and evidence to their conclusions. Not the reverse. 7) I don't use fear-mongering like a cult-leader would. I show people erroneous logic, balls-out lies, mis-statements, evasions, and half-truths. It's called "impeaching the witness's credibility." 8) I defy you to find one place where I offered anybody any advice that caused them harm (see #3 above). So ... can you answer all of my questions, and WOULD YOU please tell me why you lied about PClark's statements? Thanks very much, Uncle Otie. On Jul 10, 10:18 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Just to get an idea of your background for the advice > you constantly provide on sci.med.vision. > > Otis i am not a friend of neil brooks and only know his name from posts in this NG. Nevertheless, neil brook's advice is always framed within the context of his own personal experience with his own eye problems. he makes it quite clear in his posts that he is nothing more than a knowledgeable layperson. and finally, but most importantly, he prefaces his remarks with a statement that he is NOT an eye doctor. you, on the otherhand Otis Brown Engineer (doubtful), are continually giving people advise and claiming that it is backed up with research and a proven track record. hogwash! you mislead people and misrepresent yourself as an expert. you are worse than a troll-- you are a deceitful predator who seeks out laypeople who visit this NG seeking advise because they have a genuine vision problem that affects them or a family member. then you pounce on them with your long diatribe of bull$hit. you need to be forcefully and openly opposed so that no one mistakes you for someone who actually knows what they are talking about. its people like you that demonstrate the downside of having open unmoderated forums. now I would appreciate it if you would provide me with a link to the other internet sites where you repost and edit my comments and where you apparently respond to them in a negative and derogatory fashion. i have a right to reply to your arguments, unless you prefer to skulk around in the dark behind people's back's instead of bringing the conversation into the open. where is the website Otis? give me a link. i agree that neil brooks often provides kind and honest advice from personal experience, and is not claiming to be a doctor. and that's cool, no problem.but he also posts many times things that have nothing to do with medicine, and the number of his posts that are aimed at discrediting otis brown are far more than the number of posts which are helpful to others. fair enough, he wants to protect other people from the harmful and extreme views of otis brown. but this is not really the way in which he should be doing it, i don't think. there are lots of other ways that he could do it, like make a new website and then post all stuff that he regularly posts onto this newsgroup, like why otis is an idiot and why he is so full of lies and so on and so forth. this is a much better methodology of doing things because that way he will not be flooding this forum, and all he need do is that every time otis posts on here, then he can simply post the link. that way, he can feel satisfied because he is protecting people, and we (me, dave, etc.) can also feel satisfied because he is not annoying us by continually attacking otis here. i think this is a pretty fair enough compromise, don't you? i just really do not agree with the way that neil goes about things, like every 2 days or so he makes a new thread 'otis, you stupid liar blah blah blah' and it is just increasing loading time and increasing noise level and also this bad attitude sort of seems to 'spread around' the newsgroup so that everyone becomes somewhat negative, and i just think that's a little selfish and stupid. perhaps to you what i am saying is not easily understandable, since you have been posting on this newsgroup for a long time and there seems nothing 'unusual' about seeing the continual argument, so you just accept yourself into a false paradigm where you believe that this is simply normal. but believe it or not, when a newcomer comes to this forum, they make several 'first impressions' about this newsgroup, i.e. whether it will be worthwhile to stay here or not, whether the people here are friendly, whether they should invest time contributing to the group, etc. unfortunately, when they see a constant barrage of threads like this and an ongoing argument, it looks pretty damn childish, i can tell you that for sure. in this very same way, you are actually preventing the growth of this newsgroup, because had it not been for your selfish and inconsiderate argumentativeness, they might have decided to come here and stay. .therefore i ask you please, take what i am saying now into consideration, for the future of our smv community... >you, on the otherhand Otis Brown Engineer (doubtful), are continually >giving people advise and claiming that it is backed up with research [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >talking about. its people like you that demonstrate the downside of >having open unmoderated forums. now this is where things start to get a little rough. i'm not disagreeing with you that otis often has extreme and incorrect views, and this may well mislead people. okay seriously, i'm not against you when it comes to that. however, please remember where you are posting. this is an *internet newsgroup*, and i just don't know what you were expecting... this is the internet, anarchy rules, no one to tell no one what to do -- so yeah of course there's going to be the odd 'evil people' here and there, but you just have to accept them and move on mate. that's just the way the world works. imagine if we were stuck on trying to oppose every single evil things out there. do you really think any progress will ever get made? i think not. just move on, man. ignore otis and do something productive. for your own beneift and for the benefit of others, i am pleading with you to move on. to put it simply mate, life has its evil every now and then, and at the end of the day you just have to accept it. that's life, move it or lose it, you know? >where is the website Otis? give me a link. actually you can read his website right here if you want: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/myopiafree2/ i agree that neil brooks often provides kind and honest advice from personal experience, and is not claiming to be a doctor. and that's cool, no problem.but he also posts many times things that have nothing to do with medicine, and the number of his posts that are aimed at discrediting otis brown are far more than the number of posts which are helpful to others. fair enough, he wants to protect other people from the harmful and extreme views of otis brown. but this is not really the way in which he should be doing it, i don't think. there are lots of other ways that he could do it, like make a new website and then post all stuff that he regularly posts onto this newsgroup, like why otis is an idiot and why he is so full of lies and so on and so forth. this is a much better methodology of doing things because that way he will not be flooding this forum, and all he need do is that every time otis posts on here, then he can simply post the link. that way, he can feel satisfied because he is protecting people, and we (me, dave, etc.) can also feel satisfied because he is not annoying us by continually attacking otis here. i think this is a pretty fair enough compromise, don't you? i just really do not agree with the way that neil goes about things, like every 2 days or so he makes a new thread 'otis, you stupid liar blah blah blah' and it is just increasing loading time and increasing noise level and also this bad attitude sort of seems to 'spread around' the newsgroup so that everyone becomes somewhat negative, and i just think that's a little selfish and stupid. perhaps to you what i am saying is not easily understandable, since you have been posting on this newsgroup for a long time and there seems nothing 'unusual' about seeing the continual argument, so you just accept yourself into a false paradigm where you believe that this is simply normal. but believe it or not, when a newcomer comes to this forum, they make several 'first impressions' about this newsgroup, i.e. whether it will be worthwhile to stay here or not, whether the people here are friendly, whether they should invest time contributing to the group, etc. unfortunately, when they see a constant barrage of threads like this and an ongoing argument, it looks pretty damn childish, i can tell you that for sure. in this very same way, you are actually preventing the growth of this newsgroup, because had it not been for your selfish and inconsiderate argumentativeness, they might have decided to come here and stay. .therefore i ask you please, take what i am saying now into consideration, for the future of our smv community... >you, on the otherhand Otis Brown Engineer (doubtful), are continually >giving people advise and claiming that it is backed up with research [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >talking about. its people like you that demonstrate the downside of >having open unmoderated forums. now this is where things start to get a little rough. i'm not disagreeing with you that otis often has extreme and incorrect views, and this may well mislead people. okay seriously, i'm not against you when it comes to that. however, please remember where you are posting. this is an *internet newsgroup*, and i just don't know what you were expecting... this is the internet, anarchy rules, no one to tell no one what to do -- so yeah of course there's going to be the odd 'evil people' here and there, but you just have to accept them and move on mate. that's just the way the world works. imagine if we were stuck on trying to oppose every single evil things out there. do you really think any progress will ever get made? i think not. just move on, man. ignore otis and do something productive. for your own benefit and for the benefit of others, i am pleading with you to understand that you must now move on -- life has its evil every now and then, and at the end of the day you just have to accept it. that's life, move it or lose it, you know? >where is the website Otis? give me a link. actually you can read his website right here if you want: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/myopiafree2/ > on, man. ignore otis and do something productive. for your own benefit > and for the benefit of others, i am pleading with you to understand [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > >where is the website Otis? give me a link. hello Revival. i'm wasn't born yesterday. i understand that there are lots of crackpots on the internet and no one in their right mind would take advise from somebody online without getting additional more trustworthy input. but nevertheless Otis Brown is a wolf in sheep's clothing. he goes around telling naive people that he has the answer to their problems, and unfortunately some of those people (who are REAL naive) take his advise and actually are harmed by it. for instance, at least one person developed intractable diplopia after using "the plus" per Otis' recommendation. Otis is such an idiot that he wouldn't even understand why that happened. his solution to that problem would be that they should just try harder like his ironman nephew Keith. it doesn't hurt anyone that I, and others, take an active role in opposing Otis Brown. all we do is expose his logical fallacies so that it becomes evident to everyone that he's playing with half-a- deck. I guess I don't understand why that bothers you so much. why all the pleading? why have you come into this forum and assumed so many different names and post messages that overall are defensive of Otis? If you really want to help the guy then hook him up with some psychological help. anyway Revival, thanks for your concern and your advise. i mean that sincerely. X-No-Archive: Dear Majority-opinion PClar, Subject: Posting my commentary on the effect that a minus lens has on the refractive STATE of the natural eye. You will find my remarks on: www.myopiafree.com Just click on "Myopiafree Forum" and log-on. I have posted your commentary as well as Diego's commentary for the group to review. I also post on Alex Eulenberg's site www.i-see.org Who was driven off sci.med.vision by Dr. David Grantet (as I recall.) See you on MyopiaFree. Otis On Jul 10, 11:38 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 10, 10:18 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > conversation into the open. where is the website Otis? give me a > link. i dont know > [quote] > Summary: When presented with objective facts, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I know I do. > i dont know > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > I know I do. Dude. WHAT THE HELL is up with your profile!? =D |
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.