 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007Enuf is Enuf
Hello, I came across a very interesting posts when I stumbled across it by accident. Tell me what do you thinik? Has the situation gotted out of hand? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/23a84081854a3 843/f5780d5605b5d279#f5780d5605b5d279 Dear Absolutely Out-of-Hand, Has the trashing of Bates gotten out-of-hand? But if you wish to clear your vision with Bates, why not start by reading your Snellen (IVAC). Thus if you post 20/60 (about -1.5 to -2 diopters depending on the OD, and random errors in the measurement) you can start work on clearing your Snellen back to normal. If Bates is correct, then you should be able to clear by +1 diopter in a year, and pass the standard DMV visual acuity test. That way you can prove Bates RIGHT and get your distant vision back at the same time. These majority-opinion ODs are correct about the slow rate of vision-clearing. Against a back-drop of -1/2 diopter per year for students, you will achieve a major success if you can get your refractive STATE to change by +1 diopter in one year. Yes? No? Why not? Otis > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/23... Dear Absolutely Perfect, Subject: Support for you work to clear your Snellen. In fact all you have to do is click on this Snellen for your monitor: http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html Then click on "Display", and read the characters at 20 feet. Reading 1/2 the letters passes the line. More clicks brings up more random letters -- so you can not "memorize" the chart. If you have a friend, have him do the clicking and recording. If you are serious about this -- then take responsibility to do it yourself. No one is stopping you from doing it. I only hope you are not in "deeper" than 20/60 to 20/70. May the "force" be with you. Best, Otis On Sep 8, 3:49 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Absolutely Out-of-Hand, > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Sep 8, 12:49 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Absolutely Out-of-Hand, > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Otis, The IVAC "Snellen" is not made up to the same standard as the official chart. I checked it out. The lighting (illumination) is different and the shape of the letters (and their thickness) is different. You will get "better" results, suggesting better vision acuity, using IVAC, but in order to have any meaning to such test (especially when the tester and the testee are the same) you need a universal standard. The idea is not to "pass" the test, but to test vision as realistically and accurately as possible. Moreover, after a very short experience with IVAC you memorize its supposedly "random" sequence and can easily guess. This might provide a test for memory, but not a reliable test for vision accuity. When you get to a line in which you start seeing blur images, you can still distinguish the general shape of the image. You wouldn't mix up "O" with "I" or "X", but you might not be sure whether it's an O, G, C or Q, and you have 25% chance of hitting it right. But if the shape of the letters is not designed according to the universal standard, the distinction might become easier and thus misleading and giving false results. If, for instance, the gap in the openning of the C (the distance between the gap's top and bottom) is larger, it'll be easier to distinguish it from the O. I achieved 20/20 corrected vision with the IVAC, but I can assure you that my corrected vision is not 20/20. The same about my uncorrected vision. > On Sep 8, 12:49 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sorry. This thread has been hijacked by Otis (as usual), and I fell into the trap. Otis' postings and my response have nothing to do with this thread. Hello, >Sorry. This thread has been hijacked by Otis Ha! No need to apologize! This is a very good demonstration of what the topic is about! Dear Absolutely Bright, Subject: Nit-picking the Snellen Cleary Brainy has no interest in her distant vision. And that is fine. Indeed the minus works "instantly", and few care if their vision goes DOWN at a proven rate of -1/2 diopter per year. But success does indeed favor the prepared mind. What Brainy did not READ (if she ever did), is that the Snellen has a CALLIBRATION line on it. Thus, once you do your general checks, you apply the "correction" and the IVAC Snellen will be quite accurate. But if you like technical accuracy, then just measure the 20/60 characters. They should be 1 inch high for reading at 20 feet. Further, there are other Snellens you can down-load for free, for additional checking. In no sense do I consider vision-clearing easy -- by Bates or ANY OTHER METHOD. It is my personal judgment that Bates felt that his proposed methods HAD TO BE USED BEFORE THAT FIRST MINUS WAS APPLIED. And, perhaps at that point it could have been very successful. But we will never know, because no systematic effort was ever even attempted. (Where the individual had better-than 20/60, and knew what he was doing.) In any event, you are young, so you will learn all of this in the future. Best, Otis > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > This is a very good demonstration of what the topic is about! > On Sep 8, 12:49 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > standard. The idea is not to "pass" the test, but to test vision as > realistically and accurately as possible. Dear Mrs Brainy When I read the firs part of your post I wrote response to your post explaining about standards , etalons and so on. Ruther demonstrative response. Then I've read the second part. Dear Mrs. Brainy Official Snellen now it is dimmed vague projected image I think you remember original Snellen was paper chart with very bright lightening > When you get to a line in which you start seeing blur images, you can > still distinguish the general shape of the image. You wouldn't mix up > "O" with "I" or "X", but you might not be sure whether it's an O, G, C > or Q, and you have 25% chance of hitting it right. It is how it suppose to be it is right. It is no perfect eyes to have even 1/2 line right it is a a line! It means that we see it, but not perfect. We, probably do not need perfect. > I achieved 20/20 corrected vision with the IVAC, but I can assure you > that my corrected vision is not 20/20. The same about my uncorrected > vision. I think it is absolutely perfect Mrs Brainy. i am not sarcastic now My friend (45y) with new prescription correction :20/25 line like 30% guessing. with IVAC. You have very good results with IVAC Lena On Sep 8, 3:49 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Absolutely Out-of-Hand, > > Has the trashing of Bates gotten out-of-hand? the point is that Bates has nothing to do with science, and medicine, and vision. that's what this newsgroup is supposed to be about. not wishing and hoping and fantasy. > Thus if you post 20/60 (about -1.5 to -2 diopters depending > on the OD, Otis, a Snellen rating DOES NOT equate to a lens power in the simple- minded way that you like to believe it does. Ever heard of astigmatism, or hyperopia, or cataracts, or macular degeneration? The simple-mindedness of saying that "20/60 is about -1.5 or -2.0 diopters" is even beyond the stupidity level that you are at-- I thought! > If Bates is correct, that's where your assumptions fall apart. he wasn't correct. > These majority-opinion ODs are correct about the slow > rate of vision-clearing. Against a back-drop of -1/2 diopter [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes? No? Why not? Alright. Zetsu is correct. Enough is enough. Otis you are hopelessly stupid. You have to get out of here! Dear PClar, You trying to hijack this thread? Let Absolutely evaluate your "trashing" of anyone who suggests ANY alternative to your majority-opinion. I do not know where "Absolutely" will go with this -- but if the evaulations and discussions help him grow in intellectual understanding of the natural eye's behavior -- then his purpose will be served. The salient point is your endless "I am a God" attitude. I think Bates objected to this attitude also. Otis On Sep 8, 8:01 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 8, 3:49 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Alright. Zetsu is correct. Enough is enough. Otis you are > hopelessly stupid. You have to get out of here! On Sep 8, 7:24 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear PClar, > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Otis, You have already given us your opinion of Bates and his beliefs. Why now pretend that you are their ally? It's most disengenuous. Dear "L", Firstly, Bates was NOT the only person who is a pioneer in the PREVENTIVE second-opinion. My opinion of Bates is in two parts: Part 1. Recognition that the traditional minus lens has a true problem with it. I agree with Bates 100 % on that point. I further agree that if the person plans to do anything, he had better start the Snellen clearing process before his vision gets out-of-hand, i.e., induced stair-case myopia from an over-prescribed minus lens that is worn ALL THE TIME. Part 2: Are his methods effective if the person: a. Reads his Snellen at say 20/60, and b. Clears his Snellen to pass the DMV level test. The judgment of the this result must be exclusively the judgment of the person who does it successfully. If the person conducts Part 2 successfuly, then I think it is great for that person. In your opinion, Part 2 has never been successful, and you make every effort to TRASH Bates people working to clear their Snellen UNDER THEIR CONTROL. Our friend "Absolutely" has every right to understand Bates, and other preventive measures -- that you know are advocated by Steve Leung at: www.chinamyopia.org He also supports preventive measures and a true second-opinion offered to the public before that first wretched minus lens is "prescribed". It is up to the person to evaluate these two methods decide the issue before his vision gest out-of-control with that minus. Because I agree with you -- once he starts wearing that minus lens all the time -- it is indeed impossible to get out of it. Just one man's opinion, Otis > On Sep 8, 7:24 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Sep 8, 5:49 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Just one man's opinion, Technically, it's one f.cking idiot's opinion. On Sep 8, 5:24 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear PClar, > > You trying to hijack this thread? > > Let Absolutely evaluate your "trashing" of anyone who > suggests ANY alternative to your majority-opinion. No. As always, it's really just YOU who gets trashed here, and -- more specifically -- it's because you're a f.cking idiot. > I do not know where "Absolutely" will go with this -- but > if the evaulations and discussions help him grow in > intellectual understanding of the natural eye's behavior -- then > his purpose will be served. > > The salient point is your endless "I am a God" attitude. The real problem is that you're an interminable f.cking idiot. > I think Bates objected to this attitude also. I would think that -- if Bates knew you -- HE'D think you a f.cking idiot, too. Really. On Sep 8, 8:24 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear PClar, > > You trying to hijack this thread? No. this thread was entitled "enuf is enuf" and that's what I posted about. it was you that changed the subject AGAIN Otis. I simply changed it back. Do you sometimes think things are happening a little too quick for you Otis? > Let Absolutely evaluate your "trashing" of anyone who > suggests ANY alternative to your majority-opinion. I don't disapprove of anyone having an alternate theory. But I dislike you for proposing certain treatments to people that have either been disproven, or for which there is no supporting data. You misrepresent yourself as someone who favors the scientific method and you routinely try to invoke the names of famous scientists in order to borrow credibility from them. But in reality you don't understand visual science in the least. I have no problem with your plus lens theory, I just have a problem with the way you try to support it. You basically don't-- when the hard questions come you just stop replying and then sheepishly start posting again a couple of days latter beginning with a rousing tale from Raphaelson's "The Printer's Son." > The salient point is your endless "I am a God" attitude. Otis. I am but the messenger. I am not pretending to be God, but I do report about the results of years of vision research studies. If you need literature citations to support what I say to you I can provide them-- and you know that I can because I keep asking you to comment on several of them and you just ignor me. Otis. Scientific research is just some manipulations that humans conduct so we can try to decipher how "God" created our world. The results of research experiments simply indicate "the way things work". When I report results to you I am simply revealing "God's intended plan" in motion. So where is the source of your information that supports what you claim? Show me the statistical data that proves that minus lenses induce myopia and plus lenses can reduce it. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/23... what's your point? I can see one thing that's gotten out of hand and that's Otis Brown (aka Uncle Scrotis). he was then, and he still is now, posting his crap on this newsgroup and it gets everybody all pissed off. there has definitely been enough of Otis. i can't understand why he would still keep coming back to a place where he is vehemently disliked and shouted-down. Dear Absolutely Bates, Subject: Yes, the trashing of Bates successful study -- has gotten out-of-hand. It took me some time to find this Bates report. http://central-fixation.com/batesmed/myopiaprevention.htm It is obvious that when a competent person runs the study -- it is successful. When a biased person runs the study -- it will fail. (Ever heard of the problem of putting the foxes in charge of the hen house???) When will with the N.E.I support second-opinion (preventive) methods now being developed? Otis > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/23... On Sep 8, 6:07 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: Yes, the trashing of Bates successful study -- has > gotten out-of-hand. It's not so much that. Generally, most people here trash the f.cking idiots. For a while here, I cited you as the only (and stellar, by the way) example. But I forgot Rishi, your Italian alter ego. On Sep 8, 8:07 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > When will with the N.E.I support second-opinion > (preventive) methods now being developed? Since they haven't been developed, and corrective lenses are so readily available, I doubt that you will ever hear from the NEI. > On Sep 8, 8:07 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Since they haven't been developed, and corrective lenses are so > readily available, I doubt that you will ever hear from the NEI. DrG, I even perfectly agree with readily available lences. What makes me shrink it is inventions like progressives and multifocals contacts. No one devise except of brain going to function under such twisted conditions. Hello, Thank you everybody for posting. But did you click on the link what I posted? Do you think situation has gotted out of hand? Too much Otis bashing? Should we just leave him alone? No? Why? Yes? Why? Etc. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > has gotted out of hand? Too much Otis bashing? Should we just leave > him alone? No? Why? Yes? Why? Etc. Who is bashing Otis? Otis likes to bash optometrists. DrL> Who is bashing Otis? Otis likes to bash optometrists Otis> This is false. I fully support SECOND-OPINION optometrists who are helping children avoid entry into myopia (at the threshold). It then becomes a matter of choice for the parent and child to determine whether they want plus-prevention -- or not. Otis> Further, I do not believe the office-fib that a -4 diopter lens has absolutly NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of the natural eye. Because when the experiment is done CORRECTLY, the eye changes its refractive STATE by -2 diopters in less than three months. The denies your statment that a -4 diopter lens has NO EFFECT ON THE EYE'S REFRACTIVE STATE. See the blue-tint scientific model of the natural eye changing its "length" as a function of an applied -3 diopter lens: http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html Otis> So yes, I would have the parents understand this second-opinion, and the optometrists who WILL SUPPORT THE PUBLIC with this preventive method. See: www.chinamyopia.org So no, I don't "bash" optometrists -- only the majority-opinion ones that think they are "Gods". Best, Otis > > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Who is bashing Otis? Otis likes to bash optometrists. On Sep 9, 8:46 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Otis> This is false. I fully support SECOND-OPINION > optometrists who are helping children avoid entry > into myopia (at the threshold). It then becomes > a matter of choice for the parent and child to > determine whether they want plus-prevention -- or not. Oh, I forgot. There is one optometrist you don't bash. This one: www.chinamyopia.org You also like to link to this site: > http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html Wildsoet is a leading authority on myopia. Nowhere does she endorse your ideas. In fact, she categorically states that no change in prescribing habits is warranted given the current state of knowledge. So, give this optometry bashing a rest. Take some time off and get acquainted with the literature and the current trends in research. Update your thinking, and come back with a better attitude. OK? On Sep 9, 6:46 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Otis> Further, I do not believe the office-fib that > a -4 diopter lens has absolutly NO EFFECT on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > your statment that a -4 diopter lens > has NO EFFECT ON THE EYE'S REFRACTIVE STATE. Nice straw man there, Uncle Otie. Nobody ever says this except you. What's that? Reason number 1,138 why you're just a f.cking idiot? Here, a.shole. Start here: www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt I think so. Sounds about right. Hi Mr Brooks, I think the questions was answered on a different website somewhere. It was called something like 'isee'. Anyhow mr.pclar I am not a wacko. I don't know why you can ever think I am a wacko, because in actual facts I'm not. Anyhow the problem isn't too much otis. I think actually its too much people who enjoy seeing their flag waving and getting a bit of reputation for themselves, if you know what I mean. Theres no real excuse for people to keep on attacking Otis the way it is going. It actually doesn't serve anyone, actually. It only makes the topics turn into big flame wars and then people get really really angry and mad with each other. So that's why I think it isn't good to keep this stuff going. I mean enuf is enuf. There's a line of decency which you shouldn't cross... but it's been crossed. > Anyhow mr.pclar I am not a wacko. I don't know why you can ever think > I am a wacko, because in actual facts I'm not. > > Anyhow the problem isn't too much otis. When you start your proposition with two such abjectly incorrect statements, the smartest thing for the objective reader to do is to simply disregard the rest of what's written. Hello, Anyhow what I am saying is that you shouldn't keep bashing Otis, because it is just making the newsgroup get worser and worser. It is may be quite bad just Otis alone, just posting his stuff without anyone responding. But then you people come and respond to it, then everyone turns their attention onto Otis: thread becomes centred around Otis: the original poster gets ignored. So you can blame Otis for all your problems, or you can actually start taking some responsiblity. Anyhow if you just did ignore Otis, and just posted good medical help to people who need it, then I think that the good medical help will stand out from the false advice automatically; you won't even need to do anything. If that makes sense. Do you know what I mean though? > Do you know what I mean though? Whether I do or don't is actually irrelevant. I just don't CARE about anything you have to say. Cheers! BTW: Why do multiple people/personalities/aliases post under your e- mail address? > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > has gotted out of hand? Too much Otis bashing? Should we just leave > him alone? No? Why? Yes? Why? Etc. > Too much Otis bashing? Should we just leave > him alone? No? Why? Yes? Why? Etc. i answered your query. the real problem is TOO MUCH OTIS. but now another group of wackos has shown up. you included. our original problem with just Otis and Rishi has now gotten so bad that this once-useful newsgroup for people who had vision-related medical questions has turned into just another troll-infested internet site. when someone asks questions about contacts, or floaters, or something else all they get is "Bates .. blah.. blah.. blah" or "progressive lenses are the work of the devil" or similar bullcrap. > DrG, > I even perfectly agree with readily available [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No one devise except of brain going to function > under such twisted conditions. I wear progressive lenses. I think they are a great invention. Multifocal contacts work for some and not for others. Actually, there is a doctor who has a patent on treating myopia in children with multifocal contact lenses. Try finding it. Hint: Wildsoet makes reference to it on her website. > > DrG, > > I even perfectly agree with readily available [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > children with multifocal contact lenses. Try finding it. Hint: > Wildsoet makes reference to it on her website. > I wear progressive lenses. I think they are a great invention. DrG, Men designed space shuttle without progressives. Guided space craft flying to the moo without progressives. Designed the first computer , invented MRI, made first organ transplant surgery. I do not think all of them was filling all the time discomfort or been less happy in their life. If you play golf (even not in progressives) Try to wear singles or bifocals For a couple of weeks then play golf You will be surprised. > Actually, there is a doctor who has a patent on treating myopia in > children with multifocal contact lenses. Try finding it. Hint: > Wildsoet makes reference to it on her website. Howell lecture also states about multifocals treatments of miopia. To put the multifocals at children is not really good idea. I do not think that it is works. And if it even does two images at retina modify how the brain processes info. It is children's undeveloped brain. If it is a trade: brain or myopia Myopia is better. Myopia is not a decease. It is no point for intervention into children's brain functionality.. There is a lasik at least. She, who patented it, I sure, Did not do it for her own children. Nobody can give 100% guaranty now, that in 30-40 years after that multifocal "treatments" some of them will not have for example Alzheimer's at 40. Why we are trying to modify perfect systems? Lena > Men designed space shuttle without progressives. > Guided space craft flying to the moo without progressives. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Why we are trying to modify perfect systems? > Lena Another "anti-optometry/optician" screed that is utterly meaningless. Nice job, Lena. Luddite, party of three. Luddite, party of three. Your table is ready..... Incidentally, Lena: man did lots of things prior to the advent of the Internet. Do us all a favor and fervently reject ITS use, too, huh? Hi Mr.Brooks, Actually you should care what I say, because it is actually really relevant to you in fact. Because you are one of the people who is constantly bashing Otis. And you shouldn't do that, because you are just making this newsgroup get worser. I don't understand why you keep doing it, or pclar or Leukoma. It just doesn't make any sense to me, not even a bit of sense. It looks like you three just make yourself feel good by picking on someone who is a nice and easy target for you, I mean Otis. And can you imagine how good this forum would become if you all just stopped it. It would just make everything in black and white, stand out nice and good. You don't give much credit to the people who read this newsgroup. You think that they are really stupid and will be really gullible, follow the advice of online people.But I think that is a reality you have made up, not a reality which exists. And the reality is serving your ego, anyone with even a teeny bit of sense can see it. But you are the only ones who is refusing to see it. > And the reality is serving your ego, anyone with even a teeny bit of > sense can see it. But you are the only ones who is refusing to see > it. Otis created an adversary a long time ago when he took my words out of context from a private email and made it seem to this group that I supported his conclusions, when in fact I did nothing of the kind. He basically misrepresented my views. At that point I realized that Otis was an intellectually dishonest person. To this day he has never offered an apology. This is why I do not believe that his "mission" is to prevent myopia. I think that it is a disguise for another agenda. If he wanted to prevent myopia, he would join in the discussion of other therapies, but he doesn't. Why not? You're smart. You figure it out. > Otis created an adversary a long time ago when he took my words out of > context from a private email and made it seem to this group that I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > prevent myopia, he would join in the discussion of other therapies, > but he doesn't. Why not? You're smart. You figure it out. And here, you've highlighted reason #742 that I simply refer to Otis as a "f.cking idiot." After witnessing incident after incident after incident (to COUNTLESS people, last being Dr. Judy) of Otis flagrantly and blatantly LYING about others' statements, simply pointing it out, asking for retraction, clarification, etc., is now naught but overkill and excess. "f.cking idiot" sums it up rather concisely. Getting any of this, Otis? Dear Absolutly Ignorable, You are correct. Why do they "jump" on you and bash Bates??? All they have to do is kill-file Andrew, you, and Bates -- and sci.med.vision will go silent. But Nooo. You make a comment, and Brainy jumps on it -- and calls you names. Andrew makes a comment, and "L" jumps on it. Etc. Get my drift??? Otis > Hi Mr.Brooks, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > sense can see it. But you are the only ones who is refusing to see > it. On Sep 9, 7:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > All they have to do is kill-file Andrew, you, and Bates -- and > sci.med.vision will go silent. Oh, I'm sure you would like to be ignored, but no such luck. Besides, I still use Google, which does not have a killfile option. > On Sep 9, 7:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Besides, I still use Google, which does not have a killfile option. Would you use it? > > On Sep 9, 7:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Would you use it? Sure I would. I used to have one. Of course, you would then be on my killfile list and we would not have had such pleasant exchanges. > > > On Sep 9, 7:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sure I would. I used to have one. Of course, you would then be on my > killfile list and we would not have had such pleasant exchanges. Thanks. 150 000 cones/sq mm Resolution 48-60 cycles/deg Fovea diameter 3-5 deg 0.29 mm retina /deg It means for highest resolution 3 cones determine edge (in a line)(disregard hexagonal packing) Info should be processed for L,M and S cones separately. (or we need at least 9 cones per edge) but it is chromatic aberation and it is processed separately Edge it is Change in intensity from cell to cell It is Not an intensity. How eye determines the blur ? Probably it is too brief And not really understandable. Lena > How eye determines the blur ? > > Probably it is too brief > And not really understandable. Here's a concept for you: Area. > > How eye determines the blur ? > > > Probably it is too brief > > And not really understandable. > > Here's a concept for you: Area. DrG, How eye determine that area is "blured"? What is definition of the blur ? Is it quality of edges and how many edges per mm of retina ? Lena > > > How eye determines the blur ? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Lena How many angels will fit on the head of a pin? > > > > How eye determines the blur ? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > How many angels will fit on the head of a pin? You are not answering the quastion. I did some computer Processing of image. To talk about blur first we need convention what it is how we define it. how eye will determine if it is blur. Hi, >How many angels will fit on the head of a pin? Actually you can't say that because angels are not fisical things what means that you cannot fit them on fisical space, and you can never know how much space they take up because they are not in the human dimension where three dimensional space is the nature of our world. Anyhow that's a wrong question you know. lena102938 <db00qp00@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1189435965.993376.40450 @r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > How eye determine that area is "blured"? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Lena Lack of vernier acuity.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply On Sep 10, 10:36 am, Scott Seidman <namdiestt...@mindspring.com> wrote: > lena102938 <db00q...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1189435965.993376.40450 > @r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Scott > Reverse name to reply Why not lines per angl? lena102938 <db00qp00@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1189446899.828695.220590@ 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com: > Why not lines per angl? That is a measure of vernier acuity. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > lena102938 <db00q...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1189446899.828695.220590@ > 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Scott > Reverse name to reply Well, brief, schematic, not complete description of "blur" problem , which everybody operates so easily: Real time Quality of edge detection (algorithm ) In image produced with wide angle 15mm lens (which far from ideal), projected into inner surface of ellipsoid (not ideal) and detected with 4 types of photosensitive elements in hexagonal packing 3 types of which have high density around the center and very low on periphery ,density distribution of 4Th element type is opposite. Threshold of the sensitivity of the system is in correlation with noise threshold. System under consideration has "adaptation" property. etc...???? Does not look too simple, does it? lena102938 <db00qp00@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1189462172.182757.191690 @o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > Does not look too simple, does it? In fact, the retina has edge enhancement built in by virtue of a laterally inhibitory neural network. Actually, pretty simple once you read about it a few times, which you can do at http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/eyeret.html and http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/latinhib.html (the wikipedia entry on this actually sucks, though) One can explain things, and help people understand it, or one can bandy jargon about, and try to make people feel inferior for not understanding it. Blur can probably be defined in terms of resolution (related to vernier acuity)and contrast. We hardly need to define it in terms of Zernicke polynomials to understand enough to have a discussion. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > lena102938 <db00q...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1189462172.182757.191690 > @o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Scott > Reverse name to reply Thank you for ref. I read.it It is Determining of gradient. Similar as convolution with Sobel operator or Lapplas in computer edge detection. I described geometry not to use polynomial for surface modeling in Image formation. Under that conditions I doubt that there are ideal "edges" at the image , they are soft and feathered. Plus Color aberation, but if different type of cones processed separately (I do not know that) it is not a problem. Even computer, that not belongs to very smart devises (In regard with image processing ) can applying some transformations make "good" edges from "bad". Retina should process not only points (as in model) to determine blur, it should recognize pertain "edge" and understand probably "spacial frequencies " and provided that the edges are not ideal, The process of determining blur or not might be kind of complicated. > Does not look too simple, does it? It depends on what level the discussion needs to take place. You still haven't read the Hung & Ciuffreda paper, have you? They go into quite a bit of detail. > > Does not look too simple, does it? > > It depends on what level the discussion needs to take place. You > still haven't read the Hung & Ciuffreda paper, have you? They go into > quite a bit of detail. DrG, I did read one, not "unified theory ...". can tell nothing yet. I am going to read more. Lena > > > Does not look too simple, does it? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Lena The unified theory paper is the more important one. > > > > Does not look too simple, does it? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The unified theory paper is the more important one. I have it on PC. On Sep 9, 5:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > But Nooo. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Otis Excuse me Mr Otis? I call you (or any of your 2nd opinion buddies) names? I dont. It's not my style. It's OTHERS who call you names, like idiot, and like liar, and like hypocrite, and like ignorant, and like gullible, etc.. I wouldn't say that they are wrong, on the contrary, they are absolutely right, but I am not the one who is engage in the name calling activity. As usual, you are quick on theory, but very weak on the facts. But if you wish I can start calling you Uncle Crotis. Will you make you happier? Will you report it to your imaginary "Mike"? > Excuse me Mr Otis? I call you (or any of your 2nd opinion buddies) > names? I dont. It's not my style. It's OTHERS who call you names, > like idiot, and like liar, and like hypocrite, and like ignorant, and > like gullible, etc.. smug, pest, and bullshitter don't count? Or is it Andrew? > To Andrew: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a returning comet, but no, you are still here like a PEST. You have > nothing new to say, but you keep saying it nonetheless. Signature~RT Hi, Ms.Brainy you are a hypocrite you said you didn't call people names but you did call me names I remember you did so don't deny it otherwise that means you are lying. You are a bad and evil woman who should go away and never come back because you always call people names and then you pretend that you didn't. Hi, Ms.Brainy you are a very bad woman who call people names and then you pretend you didn't so that means you are lying that is really evil of you so you should just go away and never come back because you are hypocrite and you should not lie about your own crimes and also you should not act innocent because I remember that you called me lots of names before you called me 'Quasimodo' and now you are denying it but that means you are lying so don't lie otherwise you are a bad woman who should never come here. > In article <1189408716.522357.46...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > ~RT These are descriptions of conduct, on which I have elaborated. Name calling is INSTEAD of material and substantive content. Name calling is usually used when you can't, or don't want to, bring any substantive argument. Constantly calling somebody "stupid" is name calling. If you call somebody stupid after you have exhausted all reasoning and material argument, then it's an indication that you see no hope of reaching the person you are trying to reach. This is what Neil does with Otis, after years of attempts to reason with him. But if you call somebody stupid instead of bringing material argument, then it's name calling. This is what Quasimodo does (inter alia, if you know what I mean). I am on the brink of getting to Neil's place. This NG has become a zoo, and what remains is to watch the gorillas pounding on their chests. It's entertaining, I must admit. Hi, The situation of this newsgroup is a bit like the book: Lord of the Flies don't you think! At the beginning we are friends, but soon mayhem takes over the iyland. I am a bit like character: Ralph, because I am fighting against the bad and corrupted people like you. Hi, This newsgroup is a little bit likes the book: The Lord of the Flies. Because at the beginning we are all friends even though there is an anarchy. But then there is mayhem over the control, who is to control. We all want to have control. I am a bit like protagonist character on the iland: Ralph, because I am saying 'Keep the fire going!' and I am trying to keep the beacon of light open and trying to keep the fire of hope running. However the other people who does not like me says 'Put out the fire!' because they do not want to truth to be reveal, so they try and extinguish the beacon of hopes. Eventually there is big chaos and madness and war. You can substitute 'Lord of the Flies' (the great underlying evil which is causing the chaos to reign over the iland) for 'myopia' because it is myopia which is causing all this mayhem and fear and hatred. Do you know what I mean though? > Because at the beginning we are all friends Yet another logical fallacy. This one is called "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact." Keep going..... > > In article <1189408716.522357.46...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - After all, it's really only entertainment and words on a screen. The reality of the world is that Bates is still considered one the biggest quacks of all time and plus lenses don't prevent myopia. That's the reality that no amount of words on the screen or no amount of chest pounding can change. Hi, >The reality of the world is that Bates is still considered one the >biggest quacks of all time and plus lenses don't prevent myopia. Well actually no I don't think so and you are very very wrong here as a matter of facts you walking the talk the talks but no walk the walks. You make statement like this, when I ask you to back up statement you hide behind friends (Mike Tyner, and your other pals) and cowar until the next time we meet where you repeat it the same thing again.Okay plus lenses don't prevent myopia very well it has been proven, but you have nothing to back up the prior statement so that means you are lying and very bad! > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > been proven, but you have nothing to back up the prior statement so > that means you are lying and very bad! Google it! Why should I repeat what others have done so well. Somebody mentioned sungazing, and I pointed out that it can cause damage to the vision. When you disbelieved, I showed you examples. When you didn't believe the examples, I showed more. So, I guess I am not lying and you are very bad. Hi, You are just a blind sheep of the 'quackwatch' website I think. You believe that they are the 'end all' 'know all' must be right because they are a big authority on these kind of things. But really you should start to think for yourself for once in your life. All of you really should. I used to be like you once can you believe it, I used to be skeptical of like everything there ever was in the world, but then one day I realized may be the eye doctors don't know so much they pretend to know. Then I actually investigated some facts, and then learned to cure myself. So I wish you would look at the facts and not the theories of Donders and Helmoltz. Actually you always complain that Bates is century old stuff but you are forgetting that the Helmholtz theory must be like 400 years old or something, I think? Anyway you are very silly and bad and not me! If only we could meet, I would show you the power of the rest methods. One day when I get older I will come to all your locations and I will show you! > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > would show you the power of the rest methods. One day when I get older > I will come to all your locations and I will show you! Yah, yah, yah. I used to think like you, too, and then I grew up and got wiser. A little education and lots of experience helped as well. > You are just a blind sheep of the 'quackwatch' website I think. You > believe that they are the 'end all' 'know all' must be right because [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > would show you the power of the rest methods. One day when I get older > I will come to all your locations and I will show you! Perhaps you could offer some human efficacy data that comports with the scientific method. Or ... perhaps you could not. Hi, >Yah, yah, yah. I used to think like you, too, and then I grew up and >got wiser. A little education and lots of experience helped as well. Actually I know it's a really really sad thing but the real truth is that you haven't got wiser, you just got further buried under the deep sea of ignorance. It is a very very big illusion! Your education and experience has may be increased your surgical skills (I looked at your website by the way, and I read the testimonials lol) but in reality you have not gotten much wiser at all, just less and less wise! Hi Mr.Brooks, I remembers when first we met and actually yes we was frends, belief it or not! It was a very long time ago but I still can recall it. But ever since I told you to stop attacking Otis and ever since then you hold a grudge against me. Underneath you point logical fallacy to me, but the sad truth is a small grudge which you still hold against me for four months ago. > I remembers when first we met and actually yes we was frends, belief > it or not! It was a very long time ago but I still can recall it. And, as always, your mere statement doesn't make it true. Friendship requires a mutual thing -- the sort of thing that you and I ... uh ... never had. I seem to recall thinking that you were ... well .... a dick .... from rather early on in your posting history. You've done absolutely nothing to disabuse me of that thinking since then. Congratulations. > But ever since I told you to stop attacking Otis and ever since then > you hold a grudge against me. Underneath you point logical fallacy to > me, but the sad truth is a small grudge which you still hold against > me for four months ago. No grudge. I've simply revised and refined my perceptions of you based on your voluminous postings under myriad aliases and/or by multiple people using the same e-mail address. Hi Mr.Brooks, I think in the world everyone is already friends until a disagreement happens, do you know what I mean though. I mean friendship is the natural and happy way of living. I wish we were all friends on this planet for all eternity, but that can never happen I don't think. Okay may be it can happen but it will not be very likely. Too much wars and so many bad stuff going on. It is a sad thing. Anyhow I have been very good behaving recently and I always listened to what other people have to say to me before I say anything. Do you know what I mean. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > website by the way, and I read the testimonials lol) but in reality > you have not gotten much wiser at all, just less and less wise! Well, it is quite natural for children to think that way. They think they always know more than the parents. What do your parents know of your relationship with Rishi and his teachings, and do they approve? Hi, My parents shrugged and said 'cool that's good that you know how to cure the eyesight' they don't mind that I am into this kind of stuff. Actually they think I might make a lot of money out of it, may be. And my dad who is nearly 50 (well okay I am not sure his exact age) is not presbyopic so you are all wrong! And I know plenty of people who did not get presbyopic who are related to me. I even asked them 'do you have fine eyesight' yes they said absolutely I still see sharp no problems hm I wonder how that comes to be if everyone must get presbyopic after the age of 50. Either you are all lying or you just don't know what you are talking about probably you just don't know what you are talking about that is my guess. I can't see any motives for the eye doctors to lie, I mean they are just trying to help people that's cool. They just don't know how to do it properly! But do you know what I mean though. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > been proven, but you have nothing to back up the prior statement so > that means you are lying and very bad! I believe that -- as the advocate of a method -- the burden of proof of efficacy is on you. We'll wait right here. It would be preferable if you were to go away UNTIL you had this proof (in conformance with the commonly accepted scientific method). Thanks. > > In article <1189408716.522357.46...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > zoo, and what remains is to watch the gorillas pounding on their > chests. It's entertaining, I must admit. Ha Ha! So "idiot, liar, hypocrite, ignorant and gullible" are not descriptions of conduct, but "smug, pest and bullshitter" are which makes them not name calling? "Smug, pest and bullshitter" is substantive content whereas "idiot, liar, hypocrite, ignorant and gullible" is name-calling! Ha Ha Ha! Well blow me over with a feather. This NG is a great example of all sorts of alternate realities. Signature~RT > Ha Ha! So "idiot, liar, hypocrite, ignorant and gullible" are not > descriptions of conduct, but "smug, pest and bullshitter" are which > makes them not name calling? "Smug, pest and bullshitter" is substantive > content whereas "idiot, liar, hypocrite, ignorant and gullible" is > name-calling! Ha Ha Ha! Well blow me over with a feather. This NG is a > great example of all sorts of alternate realities. Regardless, YOU seem to have found a little niche that gives you quite a bit of pleasure, eh? > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Regardless, YOU seem to have found a little niche that gives you quite > a bit of pleasure, eh? Yes, it does. I am both amused and shocked by what passes for logic on this NG. If one found no pleasure on this NG, then surely one wouldn't read it, would they? It's clearly been an important outlet in your life. Would you say that calling Otis a 'f.cking idiot" is a description of his conduct or simply name calling? Is there any "substantive content" in your posts addressed to him or is it purely for your own pleasure? Signature~RT > I am both amused and shocked by what passes for logic on > this NG. If one found no pleasure on this NG, then surely one wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > ~RT And I am both amused and shocked that some people are slower than others and short on reading comprehension. Not only that the above reader didn't understand that the word "liar" by itself could be either a description of behavior or name calling, depending on the context, she also failed to notice that I have announced that I am getting to the place where Neil is. When all reasoning is exhausted, that's the only place remained. So no, I had not done "name calling" in the past and regularly as Otis claimed (to which claim I responded), and yes, I am doing it now because the clan of pests has infested this NG with never ending nonsense, lies, BS, insults and idiotic games. What's more amusing and shocking than that is the fact that the above reader has previously declared that she had made a decision not to engage in such idiotic exchanges, but apparently forgot her own decision and instead chose now to side with the pests. > she also failed to notice that I have > announced that I am getting to the place where Neil is. When all > reasoning is exhausted, that's the only place remained. It's not that he "fails" to notice, but that he continues to be amazed at the "batterer" attitudes here--the pests made me do it. Wah wah for you. No one's making you go anywhere, say or do anything to anyone. The "only place remaining" is purely in your mind. You don't have to respond at all. You choose to. > So no, I had not done "name calling" in the past and regularly as Otis > claimed (to which claim I responded), and yes, I am doing it now > because the clan of pests has infested this NG with never ending > nonsense, lies, BS, insults and idiotic games. So stop reading it! Go read something else that exercises your brainy brain. The solution to your frustration is patently clear. > What's more amusing and shocking than that is the fact that the above > reader has previously declared that she had made a decision not to > engage in such idiotic exchanges, but apparently forgot her own > decision and instead chose now to side with the pests. Always about sides with you, isn't it? I'm bored. You get the brunt of it today. No sides involved. I don't have a "side." Your post made me laugh, so I responded. You find that amusing and shocking? Not much going on in your life, huh? This is recreation. I spend my intellectual time elsewhere. I used to read this NG for information. Now I read it to see who comes up with the most outrageous construct, false logic or insult of the day. It's really fascinating to see how many people travel down exactly the same path as you have until they feel their insults are justified. You remind me of a school girl who desperately wants to be in the "in-crowd" by putting everyone else down because in some way they don't measure up. You want to be buddy-buddy with some guy named Neil and be just like him down to throwing around "justifiable" insults--please, go ahead. Whatever floats your boat. Signature~RT Dear RT, Subject: An accurate thumb-nail sketch of Brainy. You are correct. This NG is about choosing "sides", name-calling, insults, etc. It is not about science and the intellectual understanding of the science of the natural eye's behavior. I posted one "link" about early retinal detachment. With good reason I thought that: 1. All following posts would be about detached retina, and similar topics. or 2. There would be no response -- since no one read the link I posted. Instead the "retinal" topic was ignored, and I received the normal insults from the usual suspects -- including some of the "medical" people who claim an interest in "health topics". They should have led the discussion on a review of the symptoms of retinal detachment. But Nooo, they just responded with the usual inane attacks. Just one man's opinion. Otis > In article <1189473302.609938.281...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > -- > ~RT On Sep 8, 9:07 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > It is obvious that when a competent person runs the > study -- it is successful. this publications is something more like a "letter to the editor" in a modern day journal. there is no statistical analysis of the data. Are the differences between the groups statistically significant? if you call this quicky-1-page research report PROOF that the Bate's procedure works then your understanding of data analysis and decision- making is pretty weak |
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.