 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007Neil David Brooks recommends using the plus.
It turns out that Brooks recommends the use of these readers also. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/msg/c1fc0a4ea56007f5 Here is was supporting plus-prevention of "strain" all along -- while attacking me for the same recommendation!!! Otis On Jul 31, 8:03 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > It turns out that Brooks recommends the use of > these readers also. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Otis You are unbelievable Otis. Neil offers the plus to a farsighted person, which is the right thing. But obviously you don't know the difference. >On Jul 31, 8:03 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: >> It turns out that Brooks recommends the use of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Here is was supporting plus-prevention of "strain" all >> along -- while attacking me for the same recommendation!!! I attack you for being an illogical pathological liar. >> Otis > >You are unbelievable Otis. Neil offers the plus to a farsighted >person, which is the right thing. But obviously you don't know the >difference. Thank you, Ms. B Here was Simon's Rx (from that thread): Right Distance +0.50 Sph, -0.75 Cyl, 135 Axis Left Distance +0.75 Sph, -0.50 Cyl, 35 Axis Otis: once in a great while, I can't IMAGINE that you could be MORE OF AN IDIOT, but then you offer me that slight little nudge -- like this -- to get me over the hump. What the HELL is wrong with you, Man? Seriously?? Should you be institutionalized? Should a conservator take care of your affairs? SEEK HELP, FOR GOD'S SAKE! > On Jul 31, 8:03 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > person, which is the right thing. But obviously you don't know the > difference. Otis holds tightly to the simple-minded concept that "all minus is bad" and "all plus is good" regardless of the refractive error measurements of the person in question. Otis doesn't understand how the base refractive state of a patient, i.e. whether they be myopic or hyperopic relates to the suitability of plus or minus lenses. Its too deep for him. On Jul 31, 9:52 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jul 31, 8:03 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > hyperopic relates to the suitability of plus or minus lenses. Its too > deep for him. Let me try to get to the depth of Otis' logic: Minus is negative, so it must be bad for the fundamental eye; Plus is positive, so it must be good. This is a universal truth, which Dr. Granet ignores. The fundamental eye is dynamic, a fact which the majority opinion optometry still denies. Dynamic means that it constantly changes. As a second opinion engineer Otis desires to force the fundamental eye to dynamically move from the negative to the positive, which will result in a positive outcome. For that purpose he takes school monkeys and instructs them about snellen so they can measure their success themselves because nobody can trust the the optometrists who want to over prescribe them. It's not easy, but is the only solution to the fundamental negative STATE of the monkeys and the whole world. His method is purely scientific. He took 100 chicken and extracted their eyes, and lo and behold -- they became blind. His experiments with squirrels and lizards will be published in his next book, with the unavoidable conclusion: Galileo was right, but misunderstood. > His method is purely scientific. He took 100 chicken and extracted > their eyes, and lo and behold -- they became blind. Correction: The chicken became LEGALLY blind because no preventive measures of the plus were applied from the very beginning. Once the negative minus extraction was performed, the damage had been done and they could no longer get a driver's license. This is totally scientific. Hahahaha you are a funny person, Ms.Brainy. Will you teach me? I want to learn more from you. I know that you were once the journalist who once went undercover and found out a charlatan. Please, will you adopt me? > On Jul 31, 9:52 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > with squirrels and lizards will be published in his next book, with > the unavoidable conclusion: Galileo was right, but misunderstood. Hahahaha you are a funny person, Ms.Brainy. Will you teach me? I want to learn more from you. I know that you were once the journalist who once went undercover and found out a charlatan. Please, will you adopt me? > On Jul 31, 9:52 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > with squirrels and lizards will be published in his next book, with > the unavoidable conclusion: Galileo was right, but misunderstood. Ha! You are a funny person, Ms.Brainy. Will you teach me? I desire to learn more from you. I know that you were once the journalist who once went undercover and discovered the charlatans. Please, will you adopt me? > On Jul 31, 9:52 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > with squirrels and lizards will be published in his next book, with > the unavoidable conclusion: Galileo was right, but misunderstood. On Aug 1, 7:37 am, Kisame Hoshigaki <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Ha! You are a funny person, Ms.Brainy. > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > with squirrels and lizards will be published in his next book, with > > the unavoidable conclusion: Galileo was right, but misunderstood. in a way, Otis is much like Galileo. and he knows it but nobody else does. one day he will be remembered as a misunderstood martyr who recognized the real scientific truth while the rest of us (the first- opinion majority) staunchly yelled him down, stoned him, and called him a heretic. His understanding of the dynamic human eye and it's behavior is so innately correct that he needs no scientific proof to validate it. he is beyond that. in fact any data that contradicts what he knows MUST be invalid or the experiments must have been performed incorrectly. Such data were probably generated from medical scientific experiments but of course everyone knows that engineering scientific experiments are more correct. Otis is beyond question. And simply put, concave-shaped lenses are evil-- the devil's work. Convex lenses are in alignment with nature-- a concept understood by DaVinci, Galileo, Raphaelson, Einstein, Stirling Colgate (who developed toothpaste and also understands the eye) and other close friends of Otis Brown Engineer. >Ha! You are a funny person, Ms.Brainy. > >Will you teach me? I desire to learn more from you. I know that you >were once the journalist who once went undercover and discovered the >charlatans. Please, will you adopt me? Dear Hoshi, Yes, I will teach you -- one step at a time. Step #1: You posted the above 3 times in a row, but then deleted all your posts. So first of all, think well in advance and don't rush to post anything that neither you, nor any of your multiple clones, would disapprove. Step #2: If you want to be taken seriously, you must start rebuilding your shambled credibility. How? I'll leave it for you to figure out. Step #3: Find your identity in the universe and know who you are. Stick with your found self and don't get confused. Your attempts to confuse others have failed miserably, you have succeeded confusing only yourself. As to the adoption, these are the first steps you must take before I can seriously consider your offer, child. Tell me when you are ready.  SignatureMsBrainy > fundamental eye is dynamic, a fact which the majority opinion > optometry still denies. Dynamic means that it constantly changes. No, Otis *claims* that most eye professionals believe this, but they don't. They just don't believe that the eye is dynamic in the same way that Otis does. Otis also *claims* that most eye professionals think the eye works like a box camera. They don't believe that either. >> fundamental eye is dynamic, a fact which the majority opinion >> optometry still denies. Dynamic means that it constantly changes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that Otis does. Otis also *claims* that most eye professionals think >the eye works like a box camera. They don't believe that either. Incidentally, Dan... I have a very old Brownie box camera. It works very, very well ... at nearly all distances. Nonetheless, I'm thinking about suturing a -3.00d lens to it ... just to see what happens.... > In article <1185946895.416345.279...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that Otis does. Otis also *claims* that most eye professionals think > the eye works like a box camera. They don't believe that either. Dan, I tried to explain the depths of Otis' logic, not mine. Everybody else undertood it, except you. I tend to use satire and sarcasm when I encounter ridiculous claims or arguments because there is no sense in trying to pursuade the one who makes such claims or arguments. I find it the most effective way of ridiculing the ridiculous. But, to quote Otis, "this is just one woman's opinion". >It turns out that Brooks I thought I was David Granet?? Which is it, Uncle Otie? I'm so confused....... Subject: A Clarification of Neil Brooks providing MEDICAL advice. Neil Brook's "prescription" -- that differed from that of the doctor. In other words, Neil INSISTED that the poster should ignore the advice of his eye doctor and experiment with another un-prescribed pair of plus-lenses instead. (For the terrible condition of farsightedness and astigmatism, which is INSISTS can only be treated by a MEDICAL person.) Further Neil did not warn about the possibility of double vision from this "unprescribed" plus lens. Yet he freely claims that everyone who uses an un-prescribed plus lens (reader) will develop "double vision". It seems that Brooks has a double-standard along with his "double-vision" about using a plus lens. Why is it OK for Neil (the layman) to give advice on choosing a plus lens that is counter to the doctor's prescription??? Telling someone to experiment with a plus lens? Isn't that risky, Neil Brooks??? Please explain your recommendation, and the obvious contradictions that a person use a "risky" (your words) plus lens. Do you not think that giving advice to a person (when you have no medical qualifications) is a bad idea -- on YOUR PART?? Please explain in detail. Thank you! On Jul 31, 11:03 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > It turns out that Brooks recommends the use of > these readers also. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Otis >Subject: A Clarification of Neil Brooks providing MEDICAL > advice. > > Neil Brook's "prescription" -- that differed from >that of the doctor. My GOD, but you are an idiot. Well ... let's see what you try this time... > In other words, Neil INSISTED that the poster should ignore >the advice of his eye doctor and experiment with another >un-prescribed pair of plus-lenses instead. My post in the referenced thread speaks for itself. You need psychiatric help. Badly. >(For the terrible >condition of farsightedness and astigmatism, which is INSISTS can >only be treated by a MEDICAL person.) Please translate that into comprehensible English, and THEN I'll remind you of what a pathological, senile, old coot you are. Thanks. > Further Neil did not warn about the possibility of double >vision from this "unprescribed" plus lens. Yet he freely claims >that everyone who uses an un-prescribed plus lens (reader) will >develop "double vision". Nice straw man, there, Uncle Otie, although -- when you've done this thousands of times, as you have, it's no longer a simple logical fallacy. It's an outright lie. Therefore ... YOU'RE A LIAR. >It seems that Brooks has a >double-standard along with his "double-vision" about using a plus >lens. Have you stopped molesting children yet, Uncle Otie? > Why is it OK for Neil (the layman) to give advice on choosing >a plus lens that is counter to the doctor's prescription??? Gee, Uncle Otie. Perhaps it's because Simon Dean's eyes, situation, goals, and needs were ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from those to whom YOU prescribe. Here it is again, Uncle Otie. You're so ... horrifyingly stupid and dim-witted that you cannot differentiate between cases based on the information that you were given. I met a guy who worked for 35 years at Goddard. He said he'd never heard of you, but ... when I described you to him ... he remarked that "He hadn't gotten on a first-name basis with ALL of the janitors." What the HELL is wrong with you, man? > Telling someone to experiment with a plus lens? > > Isn't that risky, Neil Brooks??? No, Uncle Otie. Look up the medical definition of the word "indication." > Please explain your recommendation, and the obvious >contradictions that a person use a "risky" (your words) plus lens. >Do you not think that giving advice to a person (when you >have no medical qualifications) is a bad idea -- on YOUR PART?? With every single post -- at least on a forum where intelligent people participate -- you dig yourself deeper and deeper into the Stygian depths of idiocy. Why is it that you never stop? What kind of fu**ed up, masochistic, demented fool ARE you? No rational person with a whit of training in optometry would do anything but LAUGH at you for THIS attempt. Given a few minutes to review some of your other posts, they'd advocate for your institutionalization. Seriously. Dead seriously. You're a sick old man who, literally, should have a series of PT scans and a thorough neurological workup. > I met a guy who worked for 35 years at Goddard. He said he'd never > heard of you, but ... when I described you to him ... he remarked that > "He hadn't gotten on a first-name basis with ALL of the janitors." I just got back from church camp. We had a sanitary engineer. He took out the trash and checked the toilet paper in the bathrooms. Otis had to go back over two years to post this waaaaaay out of context garbage. Congratulations Otis, you made idiot of the week yet again. > Why is it that you never stop? What kind of fu**ed up, masochistic, > demented fool ARE you? Good Grief, Neil, give it a rest. Just happened to notice the above-- part of your post, and the same phrase could apply to you as well as Otis. Glad to see both you and Otis are requesting that some of your messages not be archived. Not that I read them very often. Whenever I see either of your names as post authors, I skip them. C66 >> Why is it that you never stop? What kind of fu**ed up, masochistic, >> demented fool ARE you? > >Good Grief, Neil, give it a rest. Nah, but thank for your input. Read all that he posts. I genuinely think he's ill. While that's truly sad, and I genuinely think he should seek help, it doesn't entitle him to cause harm. He does cause harm. Why is it that those who come to s.m.v. from the alternative vision sites ... always side ... uh ... shall we say ... blindly ... with Otis. Why don't you, instead, address the validity of the points that I'm making, or -- if you don't think they're valid -- say why not. I've tried that for years. That's what this board is about. >Just happened to notice the above-- >part of your post, and the same phrase could apply to you as well as >Otis. No, Cali. I don't think so. I'm rational, logical, sound, coherent, and honest. That doesn't apply to Otis. I think he needs evaluation. Why should anybody look to ME to relent first? Work it from the other direction (Otis) for a change, and then see how well we all play together. >Glad to see both you and Otis are requesting that some of your >messages not be archived. Not that I read them very often. Whenever I >see either of your names as post authors, I skip them. Cali, I'm crushed ... but fairly certain that I will get over it. Ah, yes. I already have. Bye, Cali. I just decided something, Cali: I'm not done. After years of participation in forums like this one, I have never actually been angered by a post, but ... you just hit the last straw and I'm finally actually angry. I have eye issues, as you know, and you have eye issues, as I know. I also know you from other boards where--as you MAY know--I've helped dozens and dozens of people (many of whom I still help because they've reached out to me by e-mail), INCLUDING YOU. You probably also know that my stance on severe dry eye patients using ophthalmic preservatives got me banished FROM that board (simply because the administrator made her living selling preserved eyedrops), despite the masses of posters who are beginning to voice that same opinion AND the overwhelming clinical evidence that my position was valid. People come to these boards for help. In those RARE days, in s.m.v.'s history, when the DOCTORS would chat, try to problem solve, hypothesize, and just spitball in an effort to raise each other's game, you could see real progress. I could gain from it. You could gain from it. Others could gain from it. But ... invariably ... either Otis or another similarly persuaded character would come along and derail the conversation. Eventually, the vast majority of the doctors would simply leave. The inter-DOCTOR conversation virtually disappeared entirely. This was happening LONG BEFORE I EVER ENGAGED OTIS. This NG represents a rare opportunity for us to sit by and listen to them talk shop, free from the time pressures, and ... FREE. That's been taken from us -- initially by others (eg, Alex), but now by Otis (and a few of his prepubescent minions). I resent it, and I have every right to resent it. The real question is: WHY DON'T YOU (AND OTHERS) SIMILARLY RESENT IT? After YEARS of simply trying to get Otis to answer questions about his position, or to account for all of the clinical evidence in OPPOSITION TO his position, or to explain its myriad failures in practice ... OR TO ENGAGE IN ANY TOPICAL WAY, I just got tired of it, as did many. Meanwhile, he has sought out and published my PERSONAL INFORMATION (full name, home address, and home phone number to start with), made baseless accusations that I had committed federal crimes, and insulted me repeatedly time and again on this and other venues. AND HE HAS HURT PEOPLE. He has hurt approximately a dozen that I know of, but I'm sure I'll find others. So ... WHY SHOULD it be me who backs down?? I have reached out to help anybody with their eye issues in any way that I could, and at any time that I could, and their gratitude is found on these various websites. I have dramatically extended myself to give such help, AS HAVE THE compassionate and gifted doctors who sporadically come here. I have ALWAYS added the caveat that I'm not a doctor. I have ALWAYS sought to answer their questions in the best way I could. I have NEVER gone beyond my depth. If I didn't/don't know something, I say that I don't know it. So ... congratulations, Cali. You pissed me off. I'm sick and tired of being the one who gets dumped on and I really don't have any interest in taking it from you. Either join the damned bandwagon to slap down the logical fallacies, the outright lies, the lies of omission, the misquotes, the obfuscation, the twisting of terminology, the "snip and run and talk behind their backs" hobby, and the absolute lack of supporting evidence ... ar willingness to engage in ANY SEMBLANCE OF MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE of Otis Brown ... in an effort to allow this forum, once again, to be a FERTILE ground for DOCTORS TO EXCHANGE IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND FOR PATIENTS TO GET HELP .... ... or ... Keep your bitching about me to yourself. Just f***ing save it, alright? Sensible, rational people can see exactly what behaviors I'm talking about. Many of them have seen them FOR YEARS. I've never hurt anybody by offering my advice. I'd LIKE to be helping people. Perhaps not surprisingly, I'd LIKE to find additional help for myself, too. But that help won't come back ... until Otis S. Brown goes away. Lead ... follow ... or get the hell out of my way. Dear Ms.Brainy, I am stuck on step number 1. I didn't do it on purpose, you know! Sometimes, it just says for me 'post successful' and then I refresh the page and it doesn't even show my post that I wrote! And then after like 5 minutes later then it FINALLY comes! But in the meantime I thought that it didn't post, so then I wrote it again! But by that time of course my other posts (the ones what I posted before this one) they will finally show up, so I have to delete all my old ones otherwise it would take up the space on google groups. So, sorry about all my multiple posts, but sometimes I get errors on my computer and it doesn't work. So that's why. But I think it is because my internet connection is quite slow. But I am going to buy a new one soon which is 16 mg/s (that's really fast)! -KH Hi Neil, >Why is it that those who come to s.m.v. from the alternative vision >sites ... always side ... uh ... shall we say ... blindly ... with >Otis. It's not about coming from the alternative vision sites, or coming from here. It has really got nothing to do with alternative sites... Neil, I do not see that Calli was siding with anyone at all. He was making a good point to you, which you refuse to see. Maybe you wonder why it is always you and not the other people here (like Mike Tyner, or the other ODs) that we have a problem with. The reason is, these people will never, never ever ever insult another member instead of the member's post, and by this virtue they show that they are able to remain in control of themselves, no matter how aggravated they may become.. But you seem unable to control your anger and often this gives you the appearance, whether you like it or not, of sinking down to the level of Otis, who you are constantly attacking for things that you yourself are doing. And you seem very concerned with making contributions to this forum, but what you are doing is not contributing very much at all. Tell me, how does "Why is it that you never stop? What kind of fu**ed up, masochistic demented fool ARE you?" benefit this forum, at all? Does it satisfy your rage? Does it protect people from Otis? Sorry Neil, but the only thing it does is it makes you look childish. Seriously childish at that! >While that's truly sad, and I genuinely think he should >seek help, it doesn't entitle him to cause harm. Nor does it entitle you to cause harm. There are a lot of young people reading this newsgroups, you know, and whether you like it or not you have an active influence over them. When you go shouting your mouth off like this, you are showing them that this sort of behavior is completely OK and doesn't need to be opposed. My advice to you: be polite, but shrewd at the same time! It is possible to get your point across without going crazy, you know. I advise you follow the good example set by other posters here, such as Mike Tyner et al. They are able to be effective in their points but remain polite. Do you think you can do that, Neil? >Why don't you, instead, address the validity of the points that I'm >making, or -- if you don't think they're valid -- say why not. Some of the 'points you are making', are not even worth validity evaluation. Again: "Why is it that you never stop? What kind of fu**ed up, masochistic demented fool ARE you?" So then, you are asking us to address the sanity of Otis? Would that really satisfy you? Would that really help anyone at all? Step back a moment and ask yourself what exactly it is you want to hear from Calli. Do you want a pat on the back with a 'well done Neil, you're a real hero protecting all those vulnerable kids out there!'? >and I'm finally actually angry. Please don't be, and try to realize that you are only dealing with slices of binary code made into text on the computer. Nothing you read on this newsgroup should ever make you feel angry. Nothing I have read on this newsgroup has never made me feel angry. It might make your online avatar 'feel' annoyed, but for it to actually harm your physical self is just being plain stupid. >I have eye issues, as you know, and you have eye issues, as I know. I >also know you from other boards where--as you MAY know--I've helped >dozens and dozens of people (many of whom I still help because they've >reached out to me by e-mail), INCLUDING YOU. This is all well and good, but how is it relevant? >You probably also know that my stance on severe dry eye patients using >ophthalmic preservatives got me banished FROM that board (simply >because the administrator made her living selling preserved eyedrops), So is it sympathy you are asking for? Sorry, but; Too bad. That's life. Get over it. >That's been taken from us -- initially by others (eg, Alex), but now >by Otis (and a few of his prepubescent minions). By 'prepubescent minions' I assume you are referring to me. No, Neil, I have never ever taken anything from you, it's you who's taken from yourself. I have never forced you to read my posts, and you could always have filtered me out. But it's not my fault that you choose to keep replying to me. It's called 'feeding the trolls', something you need to start doing less of. Neil Crooks, >So ... congratulations, Cali. You pissed me off. I'm sick and tired >of being the one who gets dumped on and I really don't have any >interest in taking it from you. Then don't... duh >Keep your bitching about me to >yourself. Just f***ing save it, alright? Or what? Calli can bitch about anyone he bloody well wants to bitch about. At least he isn't doing it 24/7, like you are. >I've never hurt anybody by offering my advice. I'd LIKE to be helping >people. Perhaps not surprisingly, I'd LIKE to find additional help >for myself, too. Then seek it, you stupid old man, and stop whining. Kakuzu Neil Crooks, >So ... congratulations, Cali. You pissed me off. I'm sick and tired >of being the one who gets dumped on and I really don't have any >interest in taking it from you. Then don't... duh >Keep your bitching about me to >yourself. Just f***ing save it, alright? Or what? Calli can bitch about anyone he bloody well wants to bitch about. At least he isn't doing it 24/7, like you are. >I've never hurt anybody by offering my advice. I'd LIKE to be helping >people. Perhaps not surprisingly, I'd LIKE to find additional help >for myself, too. Then seek it, you stupid old man, and stop whining. "<absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote > Then seek it, you stupid old man, and stop whining. Repetition won't make it happen. -MT Dear Mike, What is 'Giganews'?? I haven't heard of that. And I don't sure what you mean by 'news sever'. Anyway, I go on this website to write my posts: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/topics It's Google groups (I think it is the best one). And it is free. >It's obvious your news server ignores cancel requests. >YOU CANNOT DELETE YOUR POSTS. Sorry I don't know what is meant with 'cancel requests' but I know that you can't delete your posts but sometimes I do it so then the google groups won't archives my double posts (or the others multiple posts). Then it takes less space. >It won't make your news server respond any faster. I am going to get a faster internet next week (if my parents let me). <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> > What is 'Giganews'?? I haven't heard of that. And I don't sure what > you mean by 'news sever'. Anyway, I go on this website to write my > posts: You're using Google to access one of the oldest internet structures, a public messaging system called "newsgroups." Newsgroups are shared message bases distributed through servers designated as "nntp" servers. WHen you send a message to s.m.v., Google's nntp server shares that message with thousands of other nntp servers. Some nntp servers are slow, some are fast. Google's is slow. You can't make it faster by getting bigger pipes to your house. > It's Google groups (I think it is the best one). No, it's slow and limited to only the groups that Google wants to share. There are many newsgroups you will never see on Google. >>It's obvious your news server ignores cancel requests. > >YOU CANNOT DELETE YOUR POSTS. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > google groups won't archives my double posts (or the others multiple > posts). Then it takes less space. By that time, Google has shared your post with thousands of other news servers. When you "delete" you're sending a "cancel request" to google. Even if it _does_ honor your cancel request, google forwards that cancel request to other servers but MOST news servers ignore these requests. Other nntp servers have your post already, and it's propagated all over the world. I'm sure Google appreciates your effort to save that paltry amount of space, but it's already occupying space on all the other servers and your duplicate messages just double or triple the "wasted space" on other servers. Bottom line, you should assume that you CANNOT DELETE YOUR POSTS. >>It won't make your news server respond any faster. > > I am going to get a faster internet next week (if my parents let me). A faster internet pipe to your house won't make google post your messages any faster. However it will make it easier for you to post the same message 3, 4, 5 times. -MT Umm okay thank you for explaining about the newsgroups, Mike. I still didn't understand some stuff, but you cleared a lot of my big unsures. I am still new to all the newsgroup things so I get confused about it. PS. Yes Dan I did already know that Google does not own the groups. You don't have to be then very rude for it. Neil, I see you haven't changed a bit since we last met. You are still that same old arrogant, idiotic little punk who thinks he is always right and that everyone else must always be wrong, and can't take a bit of constructive criticism without getting all emotional. You are a foolish man, Neil, one day maybe you will see that. >As always, Andrew: your dime store efforts at psychoanalysis don't >address, at all, the merits of anything that I said. Merit? Which merits? I couldn't find any. >Why DID you show up here (s.m.v.), Andrew? Why DID Kamikaze? Is Otis >posting his cries for help on the alternative forums again? Why don't >you folks direct YOUR opprobrium at the root cause: Otis. Perhaps it is because we do not feel the need to sink down your level. Neil, why don't you just SHUT UP about Otis -- for once in your life. >Take him back to your side of the street and let's have something of >an understanding. I'd like to see THIS forum flourish again. Fortunately, they (unlike you) don't perceive in terms of 'sides'. >s.m.v. could be a lively, robust forum, but Otis scares the doctors Too bad, if they are going to let one man 'ruin the party' then they shouldn't have bothered coming into an unmoderated newsgroup in the first place. If it bothers you so much, then go ahead and start up a new 'no Otis' newsgroup version of sci.med.vision. No one is stopping you. >And why is it that nobody replying here mentions or acknowledges the: > - incessant insults toward me that Otis has posted Maybe because no one GIVES A CRAP about what Otis posts. > - fallacious FELONY accusations that he levied against me, You know, Neil, for all the insults you direct against what a pathological loser Otis is, it seems that it is you who are the one that is most affected and most upset by what he posts. My advice to you is this: Grow up. Get over it. > publishing my full name (something he constantly does), Oh boo hoo, so he publishes your FULL name. How PAINFUL it must be. >address, and home telephone number on various forums? Why exactly WERE you so idiotic as to post your real home phone number out on the open worldwide internet, in the first place, ANYWAY? >constant dodges, outright lies, omissions, diversions, false >accusations, and pure, unadulterated bull$hit (his latest post about >"my recommending plus lenses" is but one example in a string of >hundreds) That has been acknowledged already, why should we rehash? >Maybe that first 3:00am phone call from some 17 year-old to whom Otis >provided my home phone number and who Then CHANGE your phone number, you idiot. >Again: I'm astounded at what you (and the little prepubescent minion) >see as "root cause" here ... but ... then again ... I've seen your Don't put words into his mouth. >version of "logic" and "rational thought," so ... maybe I'm not so There is no such thing as 'versions' of logic and rational thought. They pre-exist as separate entities; they are not 'created' to the liking of the user. >No. When Otis scares people away, there IS no discussion. It is not Otis who is stopping the discussions, it is you who are allowing the discussions to be stopped. >You tell me. On second thought: WHY DON'T YOU TELL OTIS? Oh, shut up about Otis! You are obsessed with him! >I want this place to be what it WAS and what it COULD be. Then allow it to be. <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote > Then seek it, you stupid old man, and stop whining. Do you really need three or four aliases to police this newsgroup? -MT On Aug 2, 2:57 am, Edwardo Alphonse Elric <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote: Why do you feel it necessary to post under so many aliases. Just like Uncle Otie ... you never DO answer that question. I wonder why.... On Aug 1, 11:14 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > I think actually you just did not like my reply, that you are angry, > but cannot see that anger so clearly and yet it drives you to > action. As always, Andrew: your dime store efforts at psychoanalysis don't address, at all, the merits of anything that I said. You seem to have a great time -- very similar to Otis -- constructing an entire story, false hypothesis stacked on false hypothesis, and then sitting back, smugly, and admiring the "truth" of what you've just constructed. Except ... just LIKE Otis ... it's nothing more than bull$hit stacked on bull$hit. s.m.v. could be a lively, robust forum, but Otis scares the doctors off. There were YEARS when I didn't post here at all, and the same thing happened. When I reached out to those doctors, offline, they told me they got tired of the same incessant crap from Otis. So ... it would seem NOT to be me. Neither did Otis's posting habits change one bit during the time that I didn't post here, so ... it would seem NOT to be me. Why DID you show up here (s.m.v.), Andrew? Why DID Kamikaze? Is Otis posting his cries for help on the alternative forums again? Why don't you folks direct YOUR opprobrium at the root cause: Otis. Take him back to your side of the street and let's have something of an understanding. I'd like to see THIS forum flourish again. And why is it that nobody replying here mentions or acknowledges the: - incessant insults toward me that Otis has posted -- here and in the MODERATED forums (where I have no opportunity to respond) ... for YEARS, - fallacious FELONY accusations that he levied against me, - publishing my full name (something he constantly does), home address, and home telephone number on various forums? - constant dodges, outright lies, omissions, diversions, false accusations, and pure, unadulterated bull$hit (his latest post about "my recommending plus lenses" is but one example in a string of hundreds) ??? If you really think that referring to him as demented, senile, masochistic, or similar is worse -- particularly when I /fully/ believe that they're truths -- then I'd suggest that YOU haven't had THOSE things done TO YOU by Otis. If you really think that me trying to get him to engage directly or go away is worse than the double vision that he's induced in numerous unsuspecting people, then you haven't had double vision for any length of time. Maybe that first 3:00am phone call from some 17 year-old to whom Otis provided my home phone number and who -- for the moment -- thinks Otis is a God who will "save him from the horrors of 'majority-opinion optometrists'," but ... after a few months ... realizes that Otis holds no help for anybody -- will change your mind. As always, the charming, nice, elderly man in the Cadillac who molests little boys is still a child molester. You folk who wish to elevate style over substance ... astound me. I'm -- as always -- grateful as hell for the ongoing participation of Mike Tyner, pclark, Robert Martellaro, Catman, Dr. Judy, (and whoever else I've missed), but without the context that COMES from having been around s.m.v. for YEARS, you have NO IDEA what toll Otis has exacted. You don't have any inkling of the good ones that we've lost. I do. Again: I'm astounded at what you (and the little prepubescent minion) see as "root cause" here ... but ... then again ... I've seen your version of "logic" and "rational thought," so ... maybe I'm not so astounded after all. On Aug 2, 8:03 am, callimic...@yahoo.com wrote: > Yes, you sometimes help people, and you can be polite, and positive, > too. I've seen that. But when you come to dominate a whole discussion, > then you are not helping people. Other, shyer people don't feel > comfortable posting around you out of fear of being criticized. You > can be dogmatic and harsh. I don't see your compassionate side very > often. No. When Otis scares people away, there IS no discussion. If you're making a thinly-veiled reference to the dry eye site, then you're simply incorrect. That forum's owner certainly used "dominance of a discussion" as a reason, but -- as others have told me -- she has kicked out ANY participant who dared question the safety of HER products. I've heard from three that said the exact same thing. You're spending a great deal of time here trying to characterize MY behavior, yet -- again -- putting forward not ONE syllable about Otis's. Why IS that, I wonder? You don't see my "compassionate side?" Have you looked? Have you read my posts on the dry eye forum? Have you seen my responses to genuine inquiries HERE? The VAST MAJORITY of the participating doctors simply folded up their tents and left. You think that staying and trying to restore what was is NOT a compassionate gesture. I simply, and totally, disagree. I want this place to be what it WAS and what it COULD be. Why aren't you addressing THAT? How many people are going to try to deride me for losing sight of substantive and relevant issues ... by addressing non-substantive and irrelevant issues themselves? > You can't win the Otis Battle. Think about it---you can't win it. > What's the next step? You tell me. On second thought: WHY DON'T YOU TELL OTIS? Again: a kill-file approach has no effect on his posting and does nothing to prevent his doing harm. AGAIN: just because YOU don't view trying to keep him from hurting people as compassionate doesn't make it any less so. Please don't evade (sounds familiar) this relevant, direct question. Why me? Why NOT dear, sweet Uncle Otie. Are you acknowledging, or are you NOT acknowledging the cost to this forum that Otis exacts. You tell me. >Have you > read my posts on the dry eye forum? Have you seen my responses to > genuine inquiries HERE? Of course I did--that's where I first "met" you. And I occasionally read your non-Otis replies here. They're fine. I don't bother to comment about Otis because everything that needs to be said has already been said. Really. Your posts to Otis come across as nasty and snide, and I'm sorry to see it. Mostly I just stand back and scroll away from the brawl. C >>Have you >> read my posts on the dry eye forum? Have you seen my responses to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Your posts to Otis come across as nasty and snide, Hm. Well, Cali, all you did -- as I have said -- is to jump at me in the same way that you accuse me of jumping at Otis ... while totally ignoring all of the salient information that underlies the basic problem here. So ... Let me RE-introduce some GENUINELY material material, since you so selectively removed it: .... Why is it that those who come to s.m.v. from the alternative vision sites ... always side ... uh ... shall we say ... blindly ... with Otis. .... People come to these boards for help. In those RARE days, in s.m.v.'s history, when the DOCTORS would chat, try to problem solve, hypothesize, and just spitball in an effort to raise each other's game, you could see real progress. I could gain from it. You could gain from it. Others could gain from it. But ... invariably ... either Otis or another similarly persuaded character would come along and derail the conversation. Eventually, the vast majority of the doctors would simply leave. The inter-DOCTOR conversation virtually disappeared entirely. This was happening LONG BEFORE I EVER ENGAGED OTIS. This NG represents a rare opportunity for us to sit by and listen to them talk shop, free from the time pressures, and ... FREE. That's been taken from us -- initially by others (eg, Alex), but now by Otis (and a few of his prepubescent minions). I resent it, and I have every right to resent it. The real question is: WHY DON'T YOU (AND OTHERS) SIMILARLY RESENT IT? After YEARS of simply trying to get Otis to answer questions about his position, or to account for all of the clinical evidence in OPPOSITION TO his position, or to explain its myriad failures in practice ... OR TO ENGAGE IN ANY TOPICAL WAY, I just got tired of it, as did many. Meanwhile, he has sought out and published my PERSONAL INFORMATION (full name, home address, and home phone number to start with), made baseless accusations that I had committed federal crimes, and insulted me repeatedly time and again on this and other venues. AND HE HAS HURT PEOPLE. He has hurt approximately a dozen that I know of, but I'm sure I'll find others. So ... WHY SHOULD it be me who backs down?? I have reached out to help anybody with their eye issues in any way that I could, and at any time that I could, and their gratitude is found on these various websites. I have dramatically extended myself to give such help, AS HAVE THE compassionate and gifted doctors who sporadically come here. I have ALWAYS added the caveat that I'm not a doctor. I have ALWAYS sought to answer their questions in the best way I could. I have NEVER gone beyond my depth. If I didn't/don't know something, I say that I don't know it. Either join the damned bandwagon to slap down the logical fallacies, the outright lies, the lies of omission, the misquotes, the obfuscation, the twisting of terminology, the "snip and run and talk behind their backs" hobby, and the absolute lack of supporting evidence ... ar willingness to engage in ANY SEMBLANCE OF MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE of Otis Brown ... in an effort to allow this forum, once again, to be a FERTILE ground for DOCTORS TO EXCHANGE IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND FOR PATIENTS TO GET HELP... .... s.m.v. could be a lively, robust forum, but Otis scares the doctors off. There were YEARS when I didn't post here at all, and the same thing happened. When I reached out to those doctors, offline, they told me they got tired of the same incessant crap from Otis. So ... it would seem NOT to be me. Neither did Otis's posting habits change one bit during the time that I didn't post here, so ... it would seem NOT to be me. Why DID you show up here (s.m.v.), Andrew? Why DID Kamikaze? Is Otis posting his cries for help on the alternative forums again? Why don't you folks direct YOUR opprobrium at the root cause: Otis. Take him back to your side of the street and let's have something of an understanding. I'd like to see THIS forum flourish again. And why is it that nobody replying here mentions or acknowledges the: - incessant insults toward me that Otis has posted -- here and in the MODERATED forums (where I have no opportunity to respond) ... for YEARS, - fallacious FELONY accusations that he levied against me, - publishing my full name (something he constantly does), home address, and home telephone number on various forums? - constant dodges, outright lies, omissions, diversions, false accusations, and pure, unadulterated bull$hit (his latest post about "my recommending plus lenses" is but one example in a string of hundreds) ??? [contrast THAT with your accusations that I'm being "snide"] If you really think that referring to him as demented, senile, masochistic, or similar is worse -- particularly when I /fully/ believe that they're truths -- then I'd suggest that YOU haven't had THOSE things done TO YOU by Otis. If you really think that me trying to get him to engage directly or go away is worse than the double vision that he's induced in numerous unsuspecting people, then you haven't had double vision for any length of time. Maybe that first 3:00am phone call from some 17 year-old to whom Otis provided my home phone number and who -- for the moment -- thinks Otis is a God who will "save him from the horrors of 'majority-opinion optometrists'," but ... after a few months ... realizes that Otis holds no help for anybody -- will change your mind. As always, the charming, nice, elderly man in the Cadillac who molests little boys is still a child molester. You folk who wish to elevate style over substance ... astound me. I'm -- as always -- grateful as hell for the ongoing participation of Mike Tyner, pclark, Robert Martellaro, Catman, Dr. Judy, (and whoever else I've missed), but without the context that COMES from having been around s.m.v. for YEARS, you have NO IDEA what toll Otis has exacted. You don't have any inkling of the good ones that we've lost. I do. Again: I'm astounded at what you (and the little prepubescent minion) see as "root cause" here ... but ... then again ... I've seen your version of "logic" and "rational thought," so ... maybe I'm not so astounded after all. .... You're spending a great deal of time here trying to characterize MY behavior, yet -- again -- putting forward not ONE syllable about Otis's. Why IS that, I wonder? The VAST MAJORITY of the participating doctors simply folded up their tents and left. You think that staying and trying to restore what was is NOT a compassionate gesture. I simply, and totally, disagree. I want this place to be what it WAS and what it COULD be. Why aren't you addressing THAT? How many people are going to try to deride me for losing sight of substantive and relevant issues ... by addressing non-substantive and irrelevant issues themselves? > You can't win the Otis Battle. Think about it---you can't win it. > What's the next step? You tell me. On second thought: WHY DON'T YOU TELL OTIS? Again: a kill-file approach has no effect on his posting and does nothing to prevent his doing harm. AGAIN: just because YOU don't view trying to keep him from hurting people as compassionate doesn't make it any less so. Please don't evade (sounds familiar) this relevant, direct question. Why me? Why NOT dear, sweet Uncle Otie. Are you acknowledging, or are you NOT acknowledging the cost to this forum that Otis exacts. You tell me. =====END of quotes===== There IS an opportunity for something wonderful, in s.m.v. It may be nothing but a smoldering ember of what it once was, but it's still there. I may be the only one who doesn't want to sit back and watch it be even further destroyed by Otis, but ... that's okay. I'm pretty sure Calli heard you the first time round, Neil. >I may be the only one who doesn't want to sit back and watch it be >even further destroyed by Otis, but Of course; why would you want to sit back and let Otis have all the fun, when you could do a bit of the destroying yourself? You stupid, stupid hypocrite... >ignoring all of the salient information that underlies the basic What 'information'? You haven't provided any new information, at ALL. You are just repeating your same old crap. >There IS an opportunity for something wonderful, in s.m.v. It may be >nothing but a smoldering ember of what it once was, but it's still >there. Oh, stop your childish moaning, you moron. Your speeches increase in their stupidity the more you post... I'm pretty sure Calli heard you the first time round, Neil. >I may be the only one who doesn't want to sit back and watch it be >even further destroyed by Otis, but Of course; why would you want to sit back and let Otis have all the fun, when you could do a bit of the destroying yourself? You stupid, stupid hypocrite... >ignoring all of the salient information that underlies the basic What 'information'? You haven't provided any new information, at ALL. You are just repeating your same old crap. >There IS an opportunity for something wonderful, in s.m.v. It may be >nothing but a smoldering ember of what it once was, but it's still >there. Oh, stop your childish moaning, Brooks. Your speeches seem to increase in their stupidity the more you post... *yawn...* It's late. I'm going to sleep. > There IS an opportunity for something wonderful, in s.m.v. It may be > nothing but a smoldering ember of what it once was, but it's still > there. > > I may be the only one who doesn't want to sit back and watch it be > even further destroyed by Otis, but ... that's okay. Neil I agree the idea of having an open forum is a good one. I dont like moderation as it it always destroys creativity. As you know i wrote to you to ask for your cooperation in helping to make I-see a more robust place where at the same time people respected each others different views. I got no reply but i understand you agreed with some of the points i raised. It seems you dont want to work together to make I-see a better place. Fair enuf. It might seem odd to you but I-see has been one of the only safe places for me to go talk about things that interest me for over a decade. I dont like to see it hijacked by anybody for some agenda be it you or anybody else. Its destructive. Others do have their own agendas and maybe that does cloud their minds. But things take time to change. Getting only angry or getting into tit for tat kind of conversations goes nowhere in my experience of these kinds of lists it just creates yet more stuff to have to deal with in a kind of nightmare descent into chaos. I find you creative Neil and so i have enjoyed many of your posts on i- see which i know Alex has found very difficult to understand Its seems to me though that change begins firstly with ourselves. My posts here were often reactionary and defensive. Others pointed out i was attention seeking and so forth. Like a moth to a flame i was drawn to my distruction while the rest of the crowd could hardly contain their glee. Meanwhile there is a huge amount of abusive stuff happeing on lists like this. Egos running riot. Its all pretty ugly. I dont want to be part of that anymore. The first person we should try changing is ourselves Andrew <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote > Sometimes, it just says for me 'post successful' and then I refresh > the page and it doesn't even show my post that I wrote! Just because the news server acknowledges your message doesn't mean it is propagated immediately. If you want immediate responses, get a Giganews account or learn to wait. > And then after > like 5 minutes later then it FINALLY comes! But in the meantime I > thought that it didn't post, so then I wrote it again! So, the solution is to believe your server when it says "post successful." > But by that > time of course my other posts (the ones what I posted before this one) > they will finally show up, so I have to delete all my old ones > otherwise it would take up the space on google groups. It's obvious your news server ignores cancel requests. YOU CANNOT DELETE YOUR POSTS. And it doesn't matter which of your many aliases you use. > So, sorry about > all my multiple posts, but sometimes I get errors on my computer and > it doesn't work. So that's why. But I think it is because my internet > connection is quite slow. But I am going to buy a new one soon which > is 16 mg/s (that's really fast)! It won't make your news server respond any faster. -MT > <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It's obvious your news server ignores cancel requests. YOU CANNOT DELETE > YOUR POSTS. And it doesn't matter which of your many aliases you use. People who read and post from Google think that SMV is a google group. Obviously, it isn't. Posts can take up to a day to appear on some newservers. Most don't honor cancel requests. Perhaps Google allows cancels, they screw up lots of things. > > So, sorry about > > all my multiple posts, but sometimes I get errors on my computer and > > it doesn't work. So that's why. Why don't you just admit that it is your brain that doesn't work. > It won't make your news server respond any faster. And it certainly won't have any effect on your newserver or my newserver. I've helped > dozens and dozens of people (many of whom I still help because they've > reached out to me by e-mail), INCLUDING YOU. Yes, you sometimes help people, and you can be polite, and positive, too. I've seen that. But when you come to dominate a whole discussion, then you are not helping people. Other, shyer people don't feel comfortable posting around you out of fear of being criticized. You can be dogmatic and harsh. I don't see your compassionate side very often. You spend a lot of time here on s.m.v. beating the tar out of Otis. I observe that; others see it. It doesn't mean that I "side" with Otis. Otis is an easy target. But he's not going to bend, break, or change--- you've proven that. I can't respect somebody who constantly beats an easy mark. When I read a sentence like "Why is it that you never stop? What kind of fu**ed up, masochistic, demented fool ARE you?" I am offended by your desperate shouting. There IS no answer to your question. You cannot understand why he keeps going, or how to make him stop, and neither can anyone else. You've tried every way you can think of and you are verbally beating him to death at this point. This is out of control behavior, even if it IS cyberspace. This is way beyond "defending the unwary" as a rationale. You can't win the Otis Battle. Think about it---you can't win it. What's the next step? C Then again is there a point to Cletis? On Aug 3, 2:54 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > The first person we should try changing is ourselves "There were YEARS when I didn't post here at all, and the same thing happened. When I reached out to those doctors, offline, they told me they got tired of the same incessant crap from Otis. So ... it would seem NOT to be me. Neither did Otis's posting habits change one bit during the time that I didn't post here, so ... it would seem NOT to be me. " Maybe the SECOND person we should try changing is Uncle Otis. Incidentally, Andrew: when presented with clear, unequivocal issues of FACT, and proven FACTUALLY wrong, Alex doesn't acknowledge, doesn't permit the post, and never varies from the basic tenets of his beliefs. He, too, REFUSES factual, clinical, documented, published, peer-reviewed information be posted on his forum, but allows Otis to spin yarns about fictional characters named "Mike" without interruption, validation, or filtration. That's an irrational zealot (see: Otis). Alex, however, moderates his own board. Believe it or not, I actually DO choose to fight the fights I can win. I see Alex as inflexible and having his mind fully made up. Actual facts only annoy him. At least he had the decency to leave s.m.v. I'm just looking for the pathetic, demented, pathological ol' coot, affectionately known as Uncle Otie, to go with him. Historically, he NEVER has. See: http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=YtC9XRAAAABNmSn0rOH7RFS4szQ7i9hK > Alex, however, moderates his own board. Believe it or not, I actually > DO choose to fight the fights I can win. I see Alex as inflexible and > having his mind fully made up. Actual facts only annoy him. Neil To be fair here, Alex is unquestionably more reasonable than Otis. Most of us one way or another have issues where we seem to have our mind stuck in concrete. For example you yourself never look at the relationship between your own vision and this argumentative hostile way of communicating you do have as often as not, which I do not think is going to benefit you. I think there is a relationship to your vision on that. You dont. We are both inflexible and we both have our minds fully made up it seems? My approach to Otis has been to talk to Alex. I think i am mostly entirely failing in that regard for reasons that you mention above, however I dont see it as an entirely lost cause. Your cause with Otis is in my view entirely lost. You need to find allies i think rather than attempt to reason with Otis or abuse him to death:-) Affection to Uncle Otie? Come on Neil! It is surely pure hatred? The MAD principal applies here surely? Mutually Assured Distruction. One defininition of insanity is that you keep doing the same thing and keep getting the same result you dont want to have. Meanwhile there are roads to be cycled, paths to be skated upon and lovers to be loved. Andrew >Most of us one way or another have issues where we seem to have our >mind stuck in concrete. For example you yourself never look at the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >vision on that. You dont. We are both inflexible and we both have >our minds fully made up it seems? You assume a great deal. My "argumentative hostile way of communicating" is a capacity, not a propensity. I reserve its use for Otis -- a case in which nothing else has ever made a difference. It's called having a flexible style OF communicating. >Most of us one way or another have issues where we seem to have our >mind stuck in concrete. For example you yourself never look at the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >vision on that. You dont. We are both inflexible and we both have >our minds fully made up it seems? Andrew, The quote above, I believe, sums up your view of vision problems, or more specifically myopia. I think it's bull. In Neil's case it's a big BS. First, Neil's problems could not have been imposed by his "attitude", since he was born with them. Or do you suggest that he had a bad attitude while still in the womb? Second, Neil is not myopic at all, quite the opposite. Third, do you have any REAL evidence (not only subjective and/or anecdotal) to support your theory about the relationship between attitude and vision problems? I doubt it. SignatureMsBrainy > andrewedwardj...@gmail.com wrote: > > First, Neil's problems could not have been imposed by his "attitude", since > he was born with them. Or do you suggest that he had a bad attitude while > still in the womb? Exactly. the correct combination of genes included into the "Neil embryo" when it was conceived has largely resulted in the "Neil with the "attitude"" that we all know and love. perhaps some environmental influences adjust behavior as well but the vast majority of the mental characteristics of a person are hard wired into the DNA. The embryo was destined to grow into an adult with an "attitude" and a mean case of keratoconjunctivitis sicca. > Third, do you have any REAL evidence (not only subjective and/or anecdotal) > to support your theory about the relationship between attitude and vision > problems? I doubt it. > > -- > MsBrainy i am happy you have had a chance to meet mr. judd. he has some "unique" beliefs when it comes to development of ammetropias. He also has some interesting personality traits that I believe might cross- react with your tendency to be a rational thinking person. On Aug 7, 9:24 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > Or do you suggest that he had a bad attitude while > > still in the womb? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > was destined to grow into an adult with an "attitude" and a mean case > of keratoconjunctivitis sicca. I think there is general consensus that an "attitude" or personality is a complex combination of genetics and environment. It is almost certain that Neil's attitude was shaped in part by his vision problems, but somebody else with identical or similar vision condition would not have evolved to be identical to Neil. There is more to a person than his vision. At least in Neil's case it's clear beyond doubt that if there is any cause and effect relationship between his vision and his attitude, it's the vision that "induced" the attitude, not the other way around as suggested by Andrew. Moreover, it's not even clear that his vision condition is related to his DNA, although it's possible. It could be some traumatic occurance to Neil as a fetus, or something that happened to his mother during her pregnancy. On the other hand, I have no doubt that my myopia IS genetic and was not induced by my attitude or behavior. It is almost > certain that Neil's attitude was shaped in part by his vision > problems, Almost certain? > At least in Neil's case it's clear beyond doubt that if there is any > cause and effect relationship between his vision and his attitude, Beyond doubt? > it's the vision that "induced" the attitude, not the other way around > as suggested by Andrew. I see. Conclusively proven then? You are certain of it? > I have no doubt that my myopia IS > genetic and was not induced by my attitude or behavior. You seem a person who likes to *say* you are certain about things:-) Maybe believing you are certain or you are right is related to your myopia? "Msbrainy" = I am clever= I know. But do you know? I dont think you can know why Neil has a vision problem. You can guess though. If you mix with others who agree with you then your guesses will seem true. Worse if you attempt to silence people who disagree with you it might seem that nobody disagrees with you unless they are "unintelligent". But what is true? What false? You have no way of knowing. I think your uncertain certainty is just a habit. Its a bit defensive. It will distance you from people. I would guess you are wanting to be liked in reality. Anyway i am not here to give you a hard time - even though this is sci.med.vision where people love giving others a hard time:-) I saw that you had asked people here why you got double vision when you are tired? When i get very tired i get double vision. Its one way for me to know i must rest. My normal sighted brother is the same. I think in fact this is quite common. Are you are certain that your vision problems are not your responsibility? Are you genetically defective? You seem certain you are. Or maybe you can believe that you do doubt it? I would guess you are not genetically defective and just need to relax and rest a bit more and dont take things quite so seriously Maybe your body is giving you a message that it does not like you reading late at night and instead prefers to sleep? Maybe it really is that simple? Regards Andrew >Maybe your body is giving you a message that it does not like you >reading late at night and instead prefers to sleep? Maybe it really >is that simple? The thing is, these people don't like 'simple'. They like to incessantly complicate matters unnecessarily, and after creating several of their own hypotheses in order to prove themselves right and to ridicule others who threaten their belief system, they point at what they have made, glorifying it as 'science' and 'fact'. It just like Bates said it is -- lack of common sense. You'd think that since rest of the body improves health, rest of the vision and of the mind would improve vision and the mind. But they are in a bottomless pit of self denial, and have become slaves to those crutches they call 'vision aids'. --- COMMON SENSE By William Horatio Bates I am in the habit of testing the vision of persons with imperfect sight at fifteen or twenty feet. Then I have them close their eyes, rest them, and if possible forget that they have eyes by remembering other things which are of interest to them. When done properly, and most people if not all are able to do it properly, the vision is always temporarily improved. I spoke to one of my patients after this had happened and asked the question, "What did you do to improve your sight?" The patient answered "I do not know" This seemed to me a remarkable answer. I asked a second question, "What did I tell you?" The patient answered "You told me to close my eyes and rest them" "What helped you then to see better?" "I do not know" answered the patient. Then I had to start in and talk and explain and tell the patient that it was the rest that helped the patient and not any efforts that were made. It is a matter of common sense. Most people would realize that if they rested their eyes and their sight got better that the rest must have had something to do with it; and, strange as it may appear, I have seen very few people who could realize or understand this truth. So many people ask me how my patents are benefited. Is it Christian Science, is it auto-suggestion, is it hypnotism, psychoanalysis, psychology, or has it to do in any way with mental science? The only answer that seems to me to approach the truth is "common sense" Now when I come to review my cases and try to fit common sense to the results obtained I get all mixed up. Most people have common sense, which is ordinary intelligence or the ability to do things in a reasonable, proper way. People who are highly educated, college graduates, professional men, teachers and college professors, would be expected to have a greater amount of common sense than ordinary persons, but I am sorry to say they do not. I have very little respect for mental science because of the numerous assumptions and theories that are advanced. A theory is always something which makes me uncomfortable. I have never been able to make any progress with a working hypothesis. All my facts which were of benefit to me have no connection whatsoever with mental philosophy. I wish to confess that it gives me a great deal of unholy delight to prove and demonstrate that all theories of physiology are wrong. This is not a popular statement to make, but I do not cure my patients by being popular. The sweetest morsel on the tip of my tongue is to say what somebody else has said before, that logic is an ingenious method of concealing the truth. When a problem comes to me which is very difficult to me to solve, instead of starting out with a working hypothesis it is my custom to accumulate as many facts as I possibly can, to analyze these facts in various ways and by every method known to science to try to discover whether my facts are true or not; and, believe me, that is not always an easy thing to do. Someone said to me that it was impossible to scientifically prove that my method for the prevention of myopia in schoolchildren ever actually did prevent myopia or nearsightedness; in other words, that it was impossible to prove a negative proposition, or that the children did not or were not prevented from acquiring imperfect sight. It has always given me great pleasure to make the statement that every child with normal eyes who has not worn glasses, who is under twelve years old, can improve their sight by reading the Snellen Test card, first with one eye and then with the other, every day. It is a benefit if the pupil learns the letters on the test chart by heart. They all improve; when I say all, I mean all, there are no exceptions. I challenged the ophthalmologists of this country to bring forward one exception to any of my statements. One exception would prove that the statement is not a truth but at best only a working hypothesis. What is that improves the sight of these schoolchildren? I have already stated that when the sight is normal the eyes are at rest. When the child reads a familiar card with normal sight the eyes are at rest. Common sense, just ordinary common sense, would conclude from this fact that the vision was improved by rest. Some teachers improved the sight of their children by having them close their eyes for a few minutes or less, frequently during the school session. They told me it always improved the sight when tested either with a familiar card or when tested with an unfamiliar card. When a child cannot read the blackboard his sight is usually improved by closing the eyes and resting them for part of a minute or longer. The cure of imperfect sight without glasses is not a matter which is complicated, which can only be explained by the abstruse incomprehensible theories of the professors of mental science. The truth is that all can be explained by common sense. One day I was testing the sight of some schoolchildren. The teacher was interested in one boy. In order to illustrate to the teacher and to the children the bad effects of staring, I asked the boy to stare at the letter "F" on the bottom line of the Snellen test card at twenty feet. This card had been permanently fastened to the wall where all the children could see it from their seats it had been in place for some months. When I asked him to do this he suddenly said to me "Not for me; I tried it once and it gave me an headache and spoiled my sight. I am too wise to do it again" The boy's common sense enabled him to realize that staring was a bad thing. I told the class that if they would all profit by his experience they would never acquire imperfect sight and need glasses. --- See ya, - Kaze >>The sweetest morsel on the tip of my tongue is to say what somebody else has said before, that logic is an ingenious method of concealing the truth. Great quote. do you have a reference please? On Aug 8, 4:24 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > andrewedwardj...@gmail.com wrote: > > > First, Neil's problems could not have been imposed by his "attitude", since > > he was born with them. Or do you suggest that he had a bad attitude while > > still in the womb? Unless Neil was examined and determined to have a vision problem at the point of birth then we need to be open minded as to the exact moment he developed his eye problems. I would not exclude the possibility that some kind of reaction to something could possibly have created a post natal condition that owes its existance to a pre natal event. Why exclude that? > > Third, do you have any REAL evidence (not only subjective and/or anecdotal) > > to support your theory about the relationship between attitude and vision > > problems? I doubt it. Why would you want to narrow the possibility by doubting its existance before you even have listened to the evidence. I have scientifically gathered evidence from a variety of different studies. I have a science degree. I consider myself scientific. To be scientific we need to begin with the idea that something is possible and test for that rather than begin with the idea it is not possible and then attempt to prove it does not exist. >On Aug 8, 4:24 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the point of birth then we need to be open minded as to the exact >moment he developed his eye problems. I was born with crossed eyes -- a TRUE "congenital esotrope." Admittedly, the trip down the birth canal WAS rather stressfull .... > I was born with crossed eyes -- a TRUE "congenital esotrope." > > Admittedly, the trip down the birth canal WAS rather stressfull . I was talking to a medical Doctor the other day about birth trauma. The fact is it cannot be decided with certainty that birth trauma or even earlier events do not have potentially lasting consequences. The question then becomes one of "is a treatment available for such a distressing event?". I think there is one at least. It might sound nuts but the breathing and meditation technique known as "conscious connected breathing" or Rebirthing is one possible method worth trying. Birth trauma is preverbal. The chances of a talking cure being effective is therefore unlikely. Some kind of combination of body work might work though. If strabs had only muscular causes then it could be concluded that operations would have a good chance of producing a vision cure. The fact they do not have a very good vision success rate suggests it is more than only a muscular event. (Spasm of accommodation is by the way documented in the literature as being a treatable condition). In my kind of wellness model eye deviations are linked to specific "habits" which can be unravelled if a person is prepared to consider this kind of healing possibility. Books raising awareness of this kind of treatment are for example "Creating your personal vision - a mind body approach to healing your vision" by Samuel berne OD I would say personally that treating this kind of thing later in life is always going to be problematic because ones "attitudes" or habits tend to be set and it is not easy for a healer to alter these kinds of "attitudes" or habits once certain ways of being are decided to be appropriate. Strabismus suggests quite a strong reluctance or difficulty in cooperation and a tendency towards conflict as a way of relating to others....something like that could be present. This kind of thing can be reinforced if mom and dad did not cooperate or only one parent was 'seen' >> I was born with crossed eyes -- a TRUE "congenital esotrope." >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >therefore unlikely. Some kind of combination of body work might >work though. It surely might. >If strabs had only muscular causes "Hypothesis contrary to fact--" particularly with true congenital esotropes. Absent a well-developed neurological fusion mechanism, very little exists to retain and maintain ortho alignment. True congenital esotropes of my era are nearly always (maybe ALWAYS) strab patients for life. These days, very early intervention with vision therapy, appropriate prisms, and fastidious management of Rx can help restore binocular function, giving access TO the neurologic mechanism that serves as a detent FOR fusion. >then it could be concluded that >operations would have a good chance of producing a vision cure. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(Spasm of accommodation is by the way documented in the literature as >being a treatable condition). Sure. If caught early and/or if its etiology is neurologic. If, OTOH, it is the result of a genetic predisposition and/or decades of residual uncorrected hyperopia, then ciliary hypertonicity is the result. Short of industrial-strength cycloplegic agents, there are really no effective treatments for somebody whose ciliaries have hypertrophied in this manner. >In my kind of wellness model eye deviations are linked to specific >"habits" which can be unravelled if a person is prepared to consider [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >kind of thing can be reinforced if mom and dad did not cooperate or >only one parent was 'seen' Does it matter that my Western sun sign is Taurus and that my Eastern sun sign is Dragon (technically: Wood Dragon*)? *A creative and magnanimous type of Dragon capable of developing bright, new revolutionary concepts. Wood combined with his sign makes him good at formulating and implementing his ideas and working cooperatively with others, even if he may be a bit condescending on occasions. Gifted with an exploratory nature, the Wood Dragon loves to look into cause and effect theories; his every action will be guided by sound logic. However, he also has a tendency t |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message