The Mess Of sci.med.vision

The following is a tale I decided to write about sci.med.vision since
I am bored today.

Once upon a time a man saw that the ophthalmologist field was an
interesting one. He decided that he ought to come into the career.
Later in life, he thought, wouldn't it be good if we could all come to
one place and discuss matters of this study and to share our ideas.
So, he saw a place called 'internet' and said: this looks like a good
place where we can talk. So he made the newsgroup, and saw that it was
good. The group was soon flourishing and the best doctors from around
the world came to talk about their own ideas.

But soon the group was plunged into hell. For a new shroud had come
over the clouds, unbeknownst to the members. Anyway, soon the members
were discouraged to see that the quality of posting had degraded into
flaming others where valuable information had once circulated and
prevailed. Some of the members left the group in their anguish. Thus
began the 'dark ages'.

After many years the group was near to seeing the light, for a number
of special individuals had came with a new level of thought, known as
Batesians. However the light was shortlived, and the group degraded
back into the previous state of war and destruction.

Anyway, that was fun writing loll

On Jan 24, 10:56*am, Zetsu <Kyazek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The following is a tale I decided to write about sci.med.vision since
> I am bored today.
>
> Once upon a time a man saw that the ophthalmologist field was an
> interesting one. He decided that he ought to come into the career.
> Later in life, he thought, wouldn't it be good if we could all come to
> one place and discuss matters of this study and to share our ideas.
> So, he saw a place called 'internet' and said: this looks like a good
> place where we can talk. So he made the newsgroup, and saw that it was
> good. The group was soon flourishing and the best doctors from around
> the world came to talk about their own ideas.
>
> But soon the group was plunged into hell. For a new shroud had come
> over the clouds, unbeknownst to the members. Anyway, soon the members
> were discouraged to see that the quality of posting had degraded into
> flaming others where valuable information had once circulated and
> prevailed. Some of the members left the group in their anguish. Thus
> began the 'dark ages'.
>
> After many years the group was near to seeing the light, for a number
> of special individuals had came with a new level of thought, known as
> Batesians. However the light was shortlived, and the group degraded
> back into the previous state of war and destruction.
>
> Anyway, that was fun writing loll

Yes. I chuckled when I read it.

Dear Zetsu,

Subject: Polite conversations -- and respect for it.

I like your insights about "Ophthalmology".

I also like your reflections on the chaos that is sci.med.vision.

You will notice that ONE troll on sci.med.vision.

I asked you a question. He interrupted twice -- proving
was a jerk his.

No one else did.

Further, this troll is profoundly ignorant and negative. He has
NOTHING
POSITIVE TO ADD -- at all.

That is perhaps the real reason sci.med.vision is so screwed up.

Enjoy,

Otis



On Jan 24, 12:07*pm, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@leukoma.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 10:56*am, Zetsu <Kyazek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The following is a tale I decided to write about sci.med.vision since
> > I am bored today.
>
> > Once upon a time a man saw that the ophthalmologist field was an
> > interesting one. He decided that he ought to come into the career.
> > Later in life, he thought, wouldn't it be good if we could all come to
> > one place and discuss matters of this study and to share our ideas.
> > So, he saw a place called 'internet' and said: this looks like a good
> > place where we can talk. So he made the newsgroup, and saw that it was
> > good. The group was soon flourishing and the best doctors from around
> > the world came to talk about their own ideas.
>
> > But soon the group was plunged into hell. For a new shroud had come
> > over the clouds, unbeknownst to the members. Anyway, soon the members
> > were discouraged to see that the quality of posting had degraded into
> > flaming others where valuable information had once circulated and
> > prevailed. Some of the members left the group in their anguish. Thus
> > began the 'dark ages'.
>
> > After many years the group was near to seeing the light, for a number
> > of special individuals had came with a new level of thought, known as
> > Batesians. However the light was shortlived, and the group degraded
> > back into the previous state of war and destruction.
>
> > Anyway, that was fun writing loll
>
> Yes. I chuckled when I read it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jan 24, 2:04 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Dear Zetsu,
>
> Subject: Polite conversations -- and respect for it.
>
> I like your insights about "Ophthalmology".
>
> I also like your reflections on the chaos that is sci.med.vision.
>
> You will notice that ONE troll on sci.med.vision.
>
> I asked you a question. He interrupted twice -- proving
> was a jerk his.
>
> No one else did.
>
> Further, this troll is profoundly ignorant and negative. He has
> NOTHING
> POSITIVE TO ADD -- at all.

Don't be so hard on yourself, Otis. We all try to accept you,
though ... since you reject concepts like evidence, fact, proof, and
science, it CAN be a bit difficult.

BTW: For one-to-one conversations, you might try e-mail. It subjects
fewer people to you.

> I asked you a question. *He interrupted twice -- proving
> was a jerk his.

There are other reasons for issues in the group - lack of proofreading
of one's posts results in confusing sentence structures, and causes
the poster's grammatical and communication skills to come into
question. It affects credibility.

"Proving was a jerk his" ~ "All your base are belong to us" ~ "Someone
set up us the bomb..."

I'm just saying. Clear communication really does help. Poor
communication makes one look like they are uneducated, or sloppy.

And another issue is people like me, popping in with unsanctioned
opinions, just becase what I'm seeing is becoming annoying - and I
feel an inalienable right to express my opinion because this is, after
all, an ostensibly open forum.

This forum would make for a really fascinating study for a
sociologist.

On Jan 25, 11:05*am, BD <robert.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Proving was a jerk his" ~ "All your base are belong to us" ~ "Someone
> set up us the bomb..."

In all fairness, though, Bobby, if Otis didn't "was a jerk his" so
much in his youth, he might not BE a -6.00d myope now ;-)

On Jan 25, 3:57 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 11:05 am, BD <robert.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Proving was a jerk his" ~ "All your base are belong to us" ~ "Someone
> > set up us the bomb..."
>
> In all fairness, though, Bobby, if Otis didn't "was a jerk his" so
> much in his youth, he might not BE a -6.00d myope now ;-)

Ew.