 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007For Dr. L.
Dear Dr. L, Subject: A misunderstanding of the eye's dynamic behavior. Just post the our original email exchange -- and we can discuss it. Best, Otis ++++++++++++++ >From "L": 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. On Sep 9, 8:14 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Dr. L, > [quoted text clipped - 23 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. Sorry. I may or may not have it, but it's probably long gone. You can probably find the exchange that took place on sci.med.vision by looking through the archives. You seem pretty good at doing that. Dear Dr. Leukoma, I have lost the discussion along time ago -- as you have. I regret it if we misunderstood each other. But neither of us can "apologize" if neither of us remembers what you or I said -- now can we. I think the issue is dead at this point. Otis > On Sep 9, 8:14 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Sep 9, 8:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Dr. Leukoma, > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Inasmuch as that is as close to an apology as I will probably ever get, fine, let's move on. But, if you want to talk about prevention, let's talk about everything, not just plus lenses. Good, Dr. L, But let us talk about "medicine" as being "reactive", i.e., supply instant solutions in five minutes. Let us also talk about the difficulties of prevention -- at the threshold. And about the hostility towards prevention by many people -- for a number of reasons. But let us at least CONCEPTUALIZE the NATURAL eye (population of) as dynamic, and use the term refractive STATE (measured with cyclogel), and tests to confim the dynamic character of the natural eye -- when OBJECTIVELY tested -- and confirm. And I mean SPECIFICALLY, (as a scientific paradigm) this blue-tint animation of the natural eye changing its refractive STATE, when the accommodation system is changed by 3 diopter -- by puting an external -3 diopter lens on it. http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html Now if you disagree with this dynamic-paradigm, or object to it -- please explain your objection. Let the chips fall where they may. Just use refractive STATE to mean what is actually MEASURED, not what is conjectured. Scientifically best, Otis > On Sep 9, 8:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Sep 9, 10:46 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Good, Dr. L, > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Aren't we way beyond this by now, Otis? Hmmm? We're talking about the eye's response to blur, now. This is the new paradigm. Forget minus and plus. Are you going to move along with us, or be left in the dustbin of history? On Sep 9, 10:46 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Good, Dr. L, > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > - Show quoted text - By the way, your habit of late night grandstanding is well-known. Answer this question: Can an old dog learn some new tricks? If we can agree on this fundamental issue, we can move forward. On Sep 9, 10:46 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Let us also talk about the difficulties of prevention -- at > the threshold. And about the hostility towards prevention > by many people -- for a number of reasons. I've never detected any hostility from anybody in this group about the concept of prevention. If you've detected hostility, I'm sure it has more to do with your irksome pushing of the plus lens as well as your antagonistic comments towards the eyecare professionals. I believe that I speak for everybody here in saying that preventing myopia would be a noble thing if only such a method was known. So, no hosility to the idea of prevention, but plenty of annoyance at your constant badgering. > On Sep 9, 10:46 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > hosility to the idea of prevention, but plenty of annoyance at your > constant badgering. There's also lying, evasion, obfuscation, streaming logical fallacies, etc., etc. Patience and reason have NEVER paid off in dealing with Otis. No matter WHO it's been ... he's f.cked over all of them sooner or later. Usually sooner. It's just a matter of time. Too bad, too. There really IS a respectable contingent who views myopiagenesis as a VERY worthwhile topic for discussion, but ... Otis. There's always Otis. Dear Reader, Subject: Does "L" statement make any sense? DrL> I've never detected any hostility from anybody in this group about the concept of prevention. Otis> Oh, then you believe that Neil Brooks is not hostile to the dynamic eye concept??? Otis> Do you go blind when you read his posts. Otis> Since you miss so much, this explains why you miss the implication of the blue-tint paradigm of the natural eye's behavior -- and all the subtle implications of it. Best, Otis > On Sep 9, 10:46 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > hosility to the idea of prevention, but plenty of annoyance at your > constant badgering. On Sep 10, 7:34 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Reader, > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You're apparently the blind one here. I see hostility directed towards your behavior on a continual basis. Nobody argues against research on prevention. The problem is that you crash every discussion and prevent anything meaningful from being said. You believe that you have a corner on the market, when the scientific literature continually says you are wrong about your prevention ideas. And, insofar as concepts of dynamic eyes go, yours is rather crude. On Sep 10, 7:34 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: Oh, and one more thing: There are topics other than prevention that interest people. Hi, > Oh, and one more thing: There are topics other than prevention that > interest people. Yes, I wonder what other topics might interesting people. May be... cure! But nobody even listen to me! >Dear Reader, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > but plenty of annoyance at your constant badgering. I have read enough of what both sides in your argument have to say to offer my view on the subject. Mr. Brown, the genesis of the negative remarks that you read in the responses to your postings about prevention are because you do not, and apparently will not, provide any credible scientific proof of what you energetically recommend to people who visit this newsgroup. That negative response is then enhanced by your unwillingness to discuss and acknowledge the scientific data that some of the doctors have taken the time to organize and present to you that argues against your prevention scheme. In short, your obstinence compunds your poor understanding of human vision, and results in outright anger when you continue to post here. I don't believe the "first opinion" doctors have any anger at your ideas, it is the personality of the man who proposes them that is the cause of it. > In short, your obstinence compunds your poor understanding of human > vision, and results in outright anger when you continue to post here. > > I don't believe the "first opinion" doctors have any anger at your > ideas, it is the personality of the man who proposes them that is the > cause of it. exact and to-the-point! Hi, >There are topics other than prevention that interest people. Well okay but actually I think that prevention is the most interesting topic ever along with cure because imagine if all the eye diseases were prevented then no one would even need to talk about contact lenses, all this and that RGP and IOLs and retinal detachments and so ons because nobody even would have those diseases in the first place! So that is why prevention is a really really interesting subject and also it should have the highest significance in the field of eye caring because it has many many implications for all the other subjects it is like route that you can take if you take the route of prevention then you wont ever even end up discussing the how to cure the disease and if you cure the disease you wont end up discussing contact lenses and surgical operations. Anyhow but do you know what I mean its a bit like domino game. > Otis> Oh, then you believe that Neil Brooks is not hostile > to the dynamic eye concept??? Neil is hostile to *YOU*, you daffy, malignant putz. Not the substrate of your ideas. (NB: pardon me for speaking for you.) BD >> Otis> Oh, then you believe that Neil Brooks is not hostile >> to the dynamic eye concept??? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >BD A fine job you did, too. Glad to see you round..... ;-) In truth, though, Otis's "dynamic eye concept" is so absolutely simplistic that it does NOT explain why HE is still a high myope. On Sep 9, 6:14 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: A misunderstanding of the eye's > dynamic behavior. Nice start (, you f.cking idiot). > Just post the our original email exchange -- and > we can discuss it. Oh, no. There's no need. You couldn't find a sentient being who has even made a CURSORY review of this newsgroup who hasn't watched you lie about what others say ... repeatedly. I don't call you a "pathological liar" (or a "f.cking idiot") for my health, Uncle Otie. I call you these things because ... well ... you're a pathological liar and a f.cking idiot. It strains any and all credibility to believe that a human being could BE so obtuse as to erroneously twist peoples' words as you do ... and as consistently as you do. Again ... pathological liar ... f.cking idiot. > Dear Dr. L, > > Subject: A misunderstanding of the eye's > dynamic behavior. > 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. Otis has already decided all the answers. Any reasonable attempt at discussion (and you are certainly a reasonable person) will just cause him to pick and choose words that appear to support whatever he has already decided. I am not impressed with the latest response of Neil Brooks to Otis, but perhaps it is best. There isn't a lot of ways that Otis can pick and choose among those words for support. |
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
|
©2010 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.