 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2008New Invention -- Instrument to measure your refractive STATE
This is great. http://www.infocusonline.org/focometerfactsheet.html What do you think? Accurate enough to determine your refractive STATE? Otis It's.. it's.. it's BRILLIANT! INCREDIBLE! GENIUS!! This new invention of yours, Otis, could change the very brink of the world itself! From this day forth, let us spread the word of a new order! Unite, for the time has come! loll As long as the above retard endorses it, you're in trouble. > As long as the above retard endorses it, you're in trouble. Some people have no engineering of tecnical curiosity. In fact I think the organization that is developing this over-all concept has the best intention in the world. We all solve our own problem -- in our own ways. Otis On Jan 23, 8:05 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > > As long as the above retard endorses it, you're in trouble. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Otis I wish you would solve your problem. > On Jan 23, 8:05 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I wish you would solve your problem. While we're airing our deepest wishes, *I* wish some of the so-called experts on here would address perfectly reasonable postings with polite, scientific responses, rather than tired ad-hominem attacks. The Focometer Otis refers to, and the charitable organization that featured and uses it appear to be a great idea. If one of you lot had happened to write that posting, there might be disagreement, but it would be reasoned discussion. But I'm wasting my time writing this, aren't I? > > On Jan 23, 8:05 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > But I'm wasting my time writing this, aren't I? It would be TRULY GRAND if we were all Buddhist Monks, perfectly capable of absolutely living in the exact moment at all times. But we aren't (I'm guessing). What we are is humans -- many of us bright and rational, blessed with good memories. Sorry, Dave, but ... unless you've been one of the ones who's endured this insufferable d-bag, for YEARS, while trying to help others or learn a bit on your own -- you're just pissing in the wind. No disrespect to you intended, but ... you have to be realistic. He's sowed a LOT of very bad seeds. It shouldn't shock that a few have taken root. Any potential "turning of a new leaf" will, and should, be viewed with a great deal of skepticism ... at best. > > On Jan 23, 8:05 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I was not replying to the original post, but to the editorial comment by Otis in his subsequent post. I am sorry you felt the need to respond. The Focometer was developed by a couple of optometrists, and I assume that it works as intended, namely a device for third world countries. I am also aware of a device invented for glaucoma patients to monitor their own pressures, except that this does not happen in the real world. Personally, I am completely supportive of empowering patients with knowledge. > Personally, I am completely supportive of empowering patients with > knowledge. And there's a 10 mile long trail of your internet posts that backs that up :-) > > Personally, I am completely supportive of empowering patients with > > knowledge. > > And there's a 10 mile long trail of your internet posts that backs > that up :-) Awww, gee whiz. You mean my cover is blown? The thing is that I'm not so arrogant that I think I can repair my own plumbing, even though I understand physics. DrG > > > Personally, I am completely supportive of empowering patients with > > > knowledge. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > DrG I'm fairly sure it takes nothing more than "great personal resolve." A pipe wrench helps, too, though. >>> > Personally, I am completely supportive of empowering patients with >>> > knowledge. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > A pipe wrench helps, too, though. The man probably has other uses for his pipe apart from wrenching it ...  SignatureNicolaas. ... Good judgment comes from bad experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. Wow dudes, for the three months I've been gone from this newsgroup, after all this time you guys all still argue like little babies. It's the same story, Otis posts, Neil whines, Dave Bell confronts the arguers, Neil whines some more, Leukoma whines a little himself, Otis starts another topic, and all over again to square one! > Wow dudes, for the three months I've been gone from this newsgroup, > after all this time you guys all still argue like little babies. It's > the same story, Otis posts, Neil whines, Dave Bell confronts the > arguers, Neil whines some more, Leukoma whines a little himself, Otis > starts another topic, and all over again to square one! ...and Zetsu flames. Nobody is whining here except you. It seems that during the time of an occasional full moon, you and your cronies like to venture out for a reality check. L> Personally, I am completely supportive of empowering patients with knowledge. Otis> And I am also totally supportive of having the person look at the scientific facts themselves -- so they are no led astray by the hubris of the majority-opinion. Otis > > > On Jan 23, 8:05 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Jan 23, 9:16 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > L> Personally, I am completely supportive of empowering patients > with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the scientific facts themselves -- so they are no led > astray by the hubris of the majority-opinion. But what about the irrationality and deceit of the "second-opinion?" Would you inflict THAT on "the person?" Fair question. Care to answer? And ... since you seem to be on furlough from Camp Padded Room ... are you ready to answer THESE questions yet? http://www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt Again, you looked like a royal a.shole (for years, but ... most recently) when that eye doctor came along and proved that I had been totally honest, and that you -- as usual -- were full of sh.t. So ... why come back now? Dear Dave, Subject: Hostile reaction to ANYTHING I post. The Focometer has a number of nice characteristics. 1. It is easy to use. 2. You can check your refractive STATE yourself. 3. You can repeat the measurement -- and TRUST the measurement you make -- if you are competent. The adverse reaction of the majority-opinion ODs his is to attack even a very mild statment. If I said the sun is shining, and it is a nice day. The would figure out a means to attack that statement. Best, Otis > > On Jan 23, 8:05 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Jan 24, 8:19 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Dave, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The would figure out a means to attack that statement. That stance is more than your usual dose of sociopathic. You seem to have zero ability to realize the harm that you've done around here -- both directly and indirectly. Chalk up another DSM-IV for Otis. I sincerely hope this one's a short furlough. Come on peeps! Surely you must get bored of this repetitive cycle?! Why don't you have a change in your life by ending the arguments and all being friends? You will create a grand justice and benefit to yourself! There is more to life than 'sci.med.vision'! > Come on peeps! Surely you must get bored of this repetitive cycle?! > Why don't you have a change in your life by ending the arguments and > all being friends? You will create a grand justice and benefit to > yourself! There is more to life than 'sci.med.vision'! Asking for valid evidence (it works better than doing nothing) is FAR from an argument. In fact, it's kind of the definition of the "sci" (science) part of sci.med.vision. Dear Dave, The resident troll (you know who he is) has just made my case for me. Q. E. D. Intelligent discussion about the excellent organization that developed the Focometer can no exist on sci.med.vision for that reason. Otis On Jan 24, 11:19 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Dear Dave, > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Jan 24, 8:38 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Intelligent discussion about the excellent organization > that developed the Focometer can no exist > on sci.med.vision for that reason. Funny. Other than the occasional commercial spam/MI5 post, the discussions around here were 100% intelligent and productive .... while you were ... um ... "away." Go back and look. If you truly were a scientific person, an engineer, or a rational human, you WOULD look back. If you DID, then you'd see what the significant variable in all of this really IS. But you won't. Neil stop being silly. You are arguing and arguing for like an eternity. Step outside from the mess and see how crazy you all look to an outsider! > Neil stop being silly. You are arguing and arguing for like an > eternity. Step outside from the mess and see how crazy you all look to > an outsider! It's called putting it on the record. Every time he puts forth something as accepted fact, I'm going to make sure that anybody looking at the thread knows that it's anything but; actually, disproved. Silly? Crazy? I suggest you find a mirror. > I suggest you find a mirror. Put another way: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? On Jan 24, 10:38 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Intelligent discussion about the excellent organization > that developed the Focometer can no exist > on sci.med.vision for that reason. Sure it can, but what is to discuss? A refracting instrument? How it works? How much it costs? Here is the mission statement from the InFocus website: ============================================== WHY ARE WE HERE? As many as 900 million children and adults in the world today are visually impaired due to refractive errors that could be corrected by prescription eye glasses. The World Health Organization estimates that 75% of the world's blindness could be prevented or treated. Toward that goal, InFOCUS helps large, medically isolated populations acquire basic vision services and the capacity to link patients to professional care. =============================================== It would appear that the InFOCUS organization agrees with the majority opinion about uncorrected REFRACTIVE ERRORS and the need to prescribe corrective lenses for them. DrG otisbrown@embarqmail.com wrote in news:88cc2a6e-009a-4795-957b- 5b67f903a1ca@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > The Focometer has a number of nice characteristics. Nothing too new about it. The FDA application was from 1994, and its classified as substantially equivalent, which means that something much like it existed in 1976 SignatureScott Reverse name to reply I thought it went like this: 'Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?' In article <88cc2a6e-009a-4795-957b-5b67f903a1ca@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > Dear Dave, > > Subject: Hostile reaction to ANYTHING I post. > If I said the sun is shining, and it is a nice day. > > The would figure out a means to attack that statement. Nobody would attack that statement, they would attack your credibility. This is called "experience". You seldom pay any attention to the subject. You seldom pay any attention to what you are replying to. It's just an excuse to repeat your dreck. Anything you post that isn't dreck, is a leadin to the dreck. This is true about 95% of the time. Thus, whatever you post can just assumed to be dreck, without even reading it. SignatureDan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net > In article > <88cc2a6e-009a-4795-957b-5b67f903a...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's just an excuse to repeat your dreck. Anything you post that isn't > dreck, is a leadin to the dreck. This is true about 95% of the time. I think that's incredibly conservative, but ... we'll go with it for now. He'll prove me right soon enough. > Thus, whatever you post can just assumed to be dreck, without even > reading it. Ya' know, Dan? You're okay :-) 3. You can repeat the measurement -- and TRUST the measurement you make -- if you are competent. _You_ can get repeatable measurements because you have no accommodation, therefore no instrument myopia and no reflex accommodation when you close one eye and test the other. For a 20-year-old, the "facts" are different. -MT > For a 20-year-old, the "facts" are different. Whoops!! There's that word again. Now, Mike ... we've been through this before. Otis's "mind" is made up. PLEASE don't confuse him with facts. TYVM, Neil
|
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.