Vision - a second "welcome" posting?

Author

a second "welcome" posting?

LarryDoc

2004-10-30, 7:09 pm

Bev et al,

I vote for including this in the Monday posting or, as Bev suggested, a
second posting later in the week under the heading: Welcome To SMV:
Advice and Consent.

I edited Dr. Mike's excellent post following. Mostly, added the three
names in the second paragraph and added a concluding paragraph.

PS: In the last few weeks I've completely avoided their posts but have
noted a significant decline in "real" queries and discussion. Too bad.

Best regards,
Larry, O.D.

> Like most public newsgroups, there is no moderator in sci.med.vision, nor
> any means of censorship if such a position did exist.
>
> 99% of the outrageous posts are from three individuals who have no formal
> training in vision science or medicine. (Otis Brown, Rishi, Evaristo) Fortunately, their ad hominems,
> false assumptions, and emotional appeals make them easy to spot.
>
> If you stick around another day or two, you'll hear how vehemently they
> assert their right to hijack the newsgroup with their own version of
> "scientific truth". In the process, they will accuse you of stupidity, or at
> least naivete, for agreeing with the medical establishment. You will become
> part of the vast medical/optometric/optical conspiracy, whose members are
> sworn to keep the truth hidden, in order to sell glasses and contacts and
> laser surgery.
>
> Periodically, we muster the energy to argue with them. But so far, nobody
> has successfully discouraged them from using a sci.med newsgroup to denounce
> what science and medicine consider conventional knowledge. Either we are
> misrepresenting science and medicine, or science and medicine are wrong and
> we are fools for not agreeing with their archaic and unfounded assertions.
>
> We don't really see a solution as far as halting their abuse, but you can choose to
>ignore them or utilize the filtering/killfile part of your newsreader
>software. Do feel free to contribute to the exchange of useful
>information of eye health and vision care.

2004-10-30, 10:09 pm

I forgot to killfile you, as I did with Otis and rishi. I guess I'll add
evaristo.recalcati@email.it to my blocked senders list as well.

I'll reply to a few of your statements here, however, but will not see your
posts from now on.

"Evaristo" <evaristo.recalcati@email.it> wrote in message
news:7a68o0ldlc1fo70htvviil993l2l3ld70d@4ax.com...
>
> So, why you and others stand up as the pseudo-moderators ?
> Say your things and be done. If someone disagrees with you,
> please do not laugh at him/her, but answer or be quiet. This
> is the nature of and un-moderated newsgroup and of free-speech.

No one laughed at anyone. Crying is a better word for it. This newsgroup
used to be a very good forum for discussion of vision problems and
solutions. By the writings of you three, the group has very much
deteriorated, to a lot of yelling and name-calling. Yes, true, that is one
of the problems with free speech, and of unmoderated newsgroups in
general--they have become a haven for attention-seeking trolls, who wreck
the NG from people seeking a serious discussion of issues.

> Live and LET live.

I don't disagree with that statement, probably no one does. I don't know how
it relates to this discussion.
>
>
> Since there are only three people that have doubts about the ability
> of the formal trained to CURE people from their eye problems then
> it means that the current vision science and medicine is right and the
> three people are wrong. Hmm that could be, but could be NOT.
> You quoted Asimoov without understanding what he was saying.
> Lol.

Unfortunately, there are no "cures" for vision problems, but there are
different ways to help visually-impaired people to see better. There is no
absolute "right" and "wrong" in science, no one "right" answer, one sees
here even different ODs disagreeing with each other on different issues. But
yes, I would be much more inclined to believe people who have had years of
study of science and medicine, than three Internet trolls with no scientific
background, self-appointed "experts" who really know nothing, who assert
that the scientifically-trained doctors know nothing, and that they know
everything about vision, without having had any training in the field.

I don't think the reaction against the three of you is that you hold a
different opinion, than the ones the trained medical professionals have. A
newsgroup is a place of discussion of all opinions. If it were a matter of
politely bringing up your theories, discussing them in a rational manner,
that would be just fine. It's great for people to have different opinions,
and to discuss them with each other. But this has been something quite
different-- a literal flooding of the NG with so many posts every day saying
the same thing, vehemently attacking the doctors who so kindly write here.
It literally has ruined the NG in many ways, not that a particular opinion
has been stated--but the sheer volume of posts every day, all with the same
assertion, and many with vicious attacks on the medical professionals who
write here. Having a discussion of various medical issues, with differing
opinions, is great-----but a troll flooding of a NG, with vituperative
attacks on its participants, is most definitely not!

(For instance, I see a recent post by someone asking about vision therapy. A
couple of the doctors who write here politely responded to the question,
there was a polite discussion of the issue, no name-calling, or anything of
the sort. That is a discussion of issues and opinions, something completely
different from the kind of flaming and spamming of the NG from the three of
you.)

This is why I would suggest that others killfile (put on "Blocked Sender's
List") the three of you, as I have done. Trolls are very hungry for
attention (including negative attention), and if not given that, might go
away.

I for one, am very glad that so many medical professionals in the area of
vision write here. This is not the case in all medical newsgroups. Not only
do they share ideas with each other, but most are very helpful in giving
advice and sharing information with laymen,at no charge, although I'm sure
all are very busy in their profession. That is very kind of them, and I
really appreciate that.

Of course that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with them, and they
do not always agree with each other as well. Medical science is always in a
state of flux, there are different opinions and theories, no one "right
answer", and one hears different opinions in all medical specialties. You
are entitled to have a different opinion (even though you have not had
equivalent training), and to express and discuss your opinions, including
disagreeing with professionals. But this has really been something far more
than that-- a flooding of the NG by egotistical attention-seeking trolls,
attacking the medical professionals who so kindly write here, etc.

As Larry said, there is nothing anyone can do to stop this, as it is an
unmoderated NG, anyone can write anything they want to. What I would suggest
is that everyone killfile and ignore the posts of you three. As you are
obviously desperate for attention, if no one is reading you except the other
two, and you see that no one is paying you any attention here, hopefully
this behavior will change.

So, that is the last time I will respond to you. I will not see any further
posts of yours, and I hope I don't see them quoted by others.

My suggestion to you---get a life!

2004-10-30, 10:09 pm

"LarryDoc" <larrydoc@nospam.yahoodotcom> wrote in message
news:larrydoc-75F521.14210130102004@news.verizon.net...[vbcol=seagreen]
> three individuals who have no formal

Actually, I'm not even sure they are three separate individuals. I suspect
"Rishi" and "Evaristo" are the same person.

Evaristo

2004-10-31, 7:08 am

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:04:02 -0700, " MS"
<ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>I forgot to killfile you, as I did with Otis and rishi. I guess I'll add
>evaristo.recalcati@email.it to my blocked senders list as well.
>
>I'll reply to a few of your statements here, however, but will not see your
>posts from now on.

This is how a baby behaves: stomps his feet on the ground,
cries and don't want to hear anything. He does this because
his reactions are purely emotional and not logical. Usually the
mother has to calm him down and teach him how to use
reasoning to solve problems. (If the mother has imperfect
sight, usually what happens is that she gets upset, screams
scold the child and make him tense. The net result is that the
boy learns how to take things hard and learns how to strain
his mind, around 12 his normal sight leaves him...)

>"Evaristo" <evaristo.recalcati@email.it> wrote in message
>news:7a68o0ldlc1fo70htvviil993l2l3ld70d@4ax.com...
>
>No one laughed at anyone.

This is false. The "Docs" here are continuously laughting at
arguments instead of addressing points. Their analogies
are of a ridiculing nature, and often are plainly wrong.

>Crying is a better word for it.

Yes, like babies.

>This newsgroup
>used to be a very good forum for discussion of vision problems and
>solutions.

What hinders you to go on with your discussions ?
No censorship or moderation is being done ?
Are you annoyed by my writings ? Don't read them.
It's a free world (at least it tends to be a free world).

>By the writings of you three, the group has very much
>deteriorated, to a lot of yelling and name-calling.

Who started the "you are trolls" flame wars ?
Who started to say "listening to people with obvious
mental illness." ? Don't listen! Read your Docs and be
happy !

>Yes, true, that is one
>of the problems with free speech,

PROBLEMS of free speech ???
Your talk like fascists did here in Italy before WW2 !!!

>and of unmoderated newsgroups in
>general--they have become a haven for attention-seeking trolls, who wreck
>the NG from people seeking a serious discussion of issues.

Why don't you put on a vote and create a
sci.med.vision.moderated ? It is not that difficult to do.
Just enough votes to get it created.
The solution is very simple.
If people want to listen to biased opinions will go to
the moderated newsgroup, if they want to read what
ALL have to say they will come here. THIS is the nature
of free-speech, this is why some newsgroup are NOT
moderated. To avoid fascist-minded people to censure
free-speech that "has problems" like you said.

>
>I don't disagree with that statement, probably no one does. I don't know how
>it relates to this discussion.

It relates to this discussion because must to let
people say and HAVE their own opinion. And more than
that you must let them express it, whatever it is.

>Unfortunately, there are no "cures" for vision problems,

This is your opinion. Mine is different because I'm cured
from vision problems and feel very very healthier now than
when I was imperfect sighted.
If you are so superstitious to have that belief it is your
problem, let us express our experiences with vision problems.

>but there are
>different ways to help visually-impaired people to see better.

One of them is have them cured.

>There is no
>absolute "right" and "wrong" in science,

So why the ODs should be right and we wrong ? This is
a silly point.

>no one "right" answer, one sees
>here even different ODs disagreeing with each other on different issues.

This explains my statements about the wandering in the dark.
It is really like this, they ARE wandering in the dark and I KNOW
it from my experience. They are trying to solve a problem looking
in the wrong direction. Putting glasses on people has this strange
effect, while it helps to see better through them at the same time
it aggravates the underlying problem that it tries to solve.

>But
>yes, I would be much more inclined to believe people who have had years of
>study of science and medicine, than three Internet trolls with no scientific
>background, self-appointed "experts" who really know nothing, who assert
>that the scientifically-trained doctors know nothing, and that they know
>everything about vision, without having had any training in the field.

You believe who you want. I have no problem with it !!!
What I KNOW is that my experience with facts are that they
ARE WRONG because their pseudo solutions made me see
worse in the years and then when I tried the other solution
I got cured. The reality of the facts that happened to me are
a way more stronger "argument" than the years of study.
I have studied books and I know that science is a becoming
phenomenon and that usually when new discoveries are made
the old books go down the drain.

People where more inclined to follow what Popes said and
so they killed women calling them witches.

By the way, more name calling from you, thanks.

>I don't think the reaction against the three of you is that you hold a
>different opinion, than the ones the trained medical professionals have. A
>newsgroup is a place of discussion of all opinions. If it were a matter of
>politely bringing up your theories, discussing them in a rational manner,
>that would be just fine. It's great for people to have different opinions,
>and to discuss them with each other.

Please point out where it didn't happen in my posts.

>But this has been something quite
>different-- a literal flooding of the NG with so many posts every day saying
>the same thing, vehemently attacking the doctors who so kindly write here.

The same thing ? The different opinion from theirs !!!

Please define "kindly" ? Is laughing at and calling someone troll a
kindly act ?

By the way a "weekly" warning post isn't a flooding of the same
thing ? Pay a little more attention at what you say.

>It literally has ruined the NG in many ways, not that a particular opinion
>has been stated

? Are you kidding ?

>--but the sheer volume of posts every day, all with the same
>assertion, and many with vicious attacks on the medical professionals who
>write here.

If you don't like someone's posts, use the filter.

>Having a discussion of various medical issues, with differing
>opinions, is great-----but a troll flooding of a NG, with vituperative
>attacks on its participants, is most definitely not!

Why you and your "professionals" are doing exactly this to
us different-opinioned people ?

>(For instance, I see a recent post by someone asking about vision therapy. A
>couple of the doctors who write here politely responded to the question,
>there was a polite discussion of the issue, no name-calling, or anything of
>the sort. That is a discussion of issues and opinions, something completely
>different from the kind of flaming and spamming of the NG from the three of
>you.)

So what's the point ? Have you read my recent posts ?
Please spot where there is name-calling or anything of the sort.

>This is why I would suggest that others killfile (put on "Blocked Sender's
>List") the three of you, as I have done. Trolls are very hungry for
>attention (including negative attention), and if not given that, might go
>away.

It is clear that you are the one wanting attention.
What is this need to suggest others to do this ?
Do you think they have not the ability to think with their heads
and decide ? My posts are FULL of very interesting points
and you are annoyed and scared by the content. Since my
arguments are strong people like you (with the strong superstitious
beliefs that hold) are scared by them and trash the discussion.
The professionals stop answering because they see that their
errors are being exposed. The smarter ones stop answering,
the less smart trash the discussion on the trolls plane. This is
evident ! People like you don't even read or understand my
arguments and fascistly try to obscure free-speech (that as
"problems" as you previously said).

>I for one, am very glad that so many medical professionals in the area of
>vision write here. This is not the case in all medical newsgroups. Not only
>do they share ideas with each other, but most are very helpful in giving
>advice and sharing information with laymen,at no charge, although I'm sure
>all are very busy in their profession. That is very kind of them, and I
>really appreciate that.

Good for you!
What do you want from me ?
To stop annoying you ?
Don't read me !

I have very strong points against your kind "professionals" and
this annoys you and them. The problem is that they (and you) are
completely wrong about vision, but you prefer to stick with your
superstitions. It is you that will get worse and worse with your
vision, not me !

>Of course that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with them, and they
>do not always agree with each other as well. Medical science is always in a
>state of flux, there are different opinions and theories,

But one !!! Lol.

>no one "right
>answer", and one hears different opinions in all medical specialties. You
>are entitled to have a different opinion (even though you have not had
>equivalent training), and to express and discuss your opinions, including
>disagreeing with professionals. But this has really been something far more
>than that-- a flooding of the NG by egotistical attention-seeking trolls,
>attacking the medical professionals who so kindly write here, etc.

Read my last 10 posts and tell me where the flooding is (except in
reply to someone's flooding).

>As Larry said, there is nothing anyone can do to stop this, as it is an
>unmoderated NG, anyone can write anything they want to.

Bless GOD !

>What I would suggest
>is that everyone killfile and ignore the posts of you three. As you are
>obviously desperate for attention,

Yes, I have this problem. Because the "professional" are doing such
a great harm to people that I cannot stay silent. Intelligent people
are reading and forming an opinion based on the content of the posts
not basing their judgment on superstitions.

>if no one is reading you except the other
>two, and you see that no one is paying you any attention here, hopefully
>this behavior will change.

You want to change the behavior of people. You are acting like
fascists did before WW2.

>So, that is the last time I will respond to you. I will not see any further
>posts of yours, and I hope I don't see them quoted by others.

Childish behavior.

>My suggestion to you---get a life!

Thank you.

My suggestion to you--cure your eyes!

--
"It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes."

Evaristo

2004-11-02, 2:09 am

>Like most public newsgroups, there is no moderator in sci.med.vision, nor
>any means of censorship if such a position did exist.

So, why you and others stand up as the pseudo-moderators ?
Say your things and be done. If someone disagrees with you,
please do not laugh at him/her, but answer or be quiet. This
is the nature of and un-moderated newsgroup and of free-speech.

Live and LET live.

>99% of the outrageous posts are from three individuals who have no formal
>training in vision science or medicine.

Since there are only three people that have doubts about the ability
of the formal trained to CURE people from their eye problems then
it means that the current vision science and medicine is right and the
three people are wrong. Hmm that could be, but could be NOT.
You quoted Asimoov without understanding what he was saying.
Lol.

>Fortunately, their ad hominems,
>false assumptions, and emotional appeals make them easy to spot.

So easy that you avoid to do it ?
Lol.
You haven't read a book that you say has false assumptions and
emotional appeals. When asked to spot where they were,
you withdrew.

>If you stick around another day or two, you'll hear how vehemently they
>assert their right to hijack the newsgroup with their own version of
>"scientific truth".

You would like to be the only one that can do this ?

>In the process, they will accuse you of stupidity, or at
>least naivete, for agreeing with the medical establishment.

When the medical establishment claims to be curing people
when in fact is wandering in the dark, it is not an intelligent
thing to do to follow their advice.

>You will become
>part of the vast medical/optometric/optical conspiracy, whose members are
>sworn to keep the truth hidden, in order to sell glasses and contacts and
>laser surgery.

There is no conscious conspiracy, but these people are not interested
in curing people from their diseases, they are only interested in
their business. Otherwise they would investigate why some cases
don't fit their theories and methods.

>Periodically, we muster the energy to argue with them. But so far, nobody
>has successfully discouraged them from using a sci.med newsgroup to denounce
>what science and medicine consider conventional knowledge.

Conventional knowledge about vision and eyes is wrong.
Plain and simple. The records of the discovery of what is wrong
was made available by the man that discovered it but conventional
"scientists" avoid investigating and reproducing the experiments
described in those publications. Why they avoid it ? Because it
is of no use to anyone apart to the patients that are willing to
give their money to anyone with a certain degree of authority,
out of desperation about their condition, obviously.

>Either we are
>misrepresenting science and medicine, or science and medicine are wrong and
>we are fools for not agreeing with archaic and unfounded assertions.

The original publications of that man are full of practical
experiments to prove the following assertions that are mere
descriptions of facts that can be observed by ANYONE
replicates those experiments.

The archaic-ness point is weak if you think that your current
beliefs about vision, accommodation and the like are WAY OLDER
than these about the man that made the discoveries. Way older.

>It's sad to see you go, but I don't really see a solution.

As usual.

>At times, there
>is entertainment value in their diatribes.

The entertainment goes away when you are left with embarrassment.
Lol.

> On your way, remember that
>wearing eyeglasses, improper use of the eyes, and mental defects cause all
>vision problems.

Exactly.
Investigate why is like this.
Read the publications made by the discoverer of it.
Understand what's written in there.
TRY ON YOURSELF the full advice that is written in there,
without being poisoned by unfounded beliefs and superstitions
that these unfair businessmen try to cast upon you cunningly
using your fear about losing your ability to see to fill their pockets
with your money.

This is the real archaic way to do business. Middle-age stuff.

>Myopia can be prevented, and only engineers can understand
>ophthalmic optics.

Otis is wrong with his beliefs because all kind of glasses force
the mind to a certain degree of refraction hindering the normal
accommodation to take place.
Prevention simply lays in the teaching of how not to use the
eyes in the wrong way (i.e. interfering with them trying to see
with a conscious/unconscious effort)

>Accommodation is controlled by the extraocular muscles,

There are publications that describe scientifically how this
could be proven. True scientist have to follow the scientific
method and have to try to reproduce the same experiments
in the same conditions to see if the results are the same. If
the experiments could be reproduced with the same results,
then there is something right in the writings. This hasn't be
done. Why ? Because is of no interest of anyone in the field
to do such a thing. The status quo is more than satisfactory
to those unfair businessmen. Here in Italy the first company
of the state is the producer of eyeglasses. Go figure!

>and cataracts, glaucoma and
>all blindness can be cured by staring at the
>sun.

This is the usual crippled statement that someone that has
not better arguments can put forth. Why are you crippling
and generalizing everything instead of asking more about
it ? This is the way an unfair businessmen dismiss things
that are opposite to his interests: he exaggerates and
distorts information taking it to extremes. No one said
all blindness, no one said staring at the sun.

>To play the Minuet in G, you have only to THINK the Minuet in G. We know
>this because Professor Harold Hill said so, 100 years ago.

Certainly you have to think it if you want to play it !
Lol !!! Is it sufficient ? Probably not if you are not a musician,
but if you have been trained to music you could easily play it
thinking about it. In fact if you can even play it without thinking
about it !

The accommodation theory that glasses sellers are using as
scientific proof of their business being right are of a man
called Herman Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmoltz born in 1821
and died in 1894.

The fact that he made important discoveries in other fields
doesn't necessarily mean that he was right about the eyes
also. This is again the authority principle and its fallacies.

--
"It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes."

2004-11-02, 11:13 am