| LarryDoc 2004-11-04, 11:11 am |
| 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.
|