Enough is enough...

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Ken, Mar 8, 2005.

  1. Ken

    Ken Guest

    Can we please stop the Otis bashing. I am a lurker that reads the group on a
    regular basis. When I went to the messages today, most of them were Otis
    etc. bashing. Now Otis, don't get me wrong; I kill-filed you a long time
    ago. But I still come to this group and get a ton of traffic unrelated to
    vision. I understand that, until Otis voluntarily includes a disclaimer,
    someone will have to post one for him. But that is all that is needed, the
    rest is just troll food.
     
    Ken, Mar 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ken

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ken,
    Subject: Posting scientific reviews -- and the second opinion.
    No one need respond to anything I post. I have been very clear about
    the proven effect that a minus lens has on the natural eye. The ODs
    can state that the do not have "time" for you in their office for
    "preventive" discussions. I undestand that "coperate" optometerits
    have a quota, that limits them to 10 to 15 minutes. Virtually no
    intelligent review is possible under that circumstance. This is a
    scientific forum. The discussions and review that can not be done in
    15 minutes can be discussed here.
    Others can "tune out" if they wish -- no harm done.
    Best,
    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. By all means, please let us know when you post one.

    Scott
     
    Scott Seidman, Mar 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Ken

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Your point is fair. You're the audience we seek to protect, but
    simultaneously not to offend. It's clear the balance is going the
    other way.

    The difficulty may be in finding *A* volunteer to consistently respond
    to the garbage that is posted. Sometimes, in order to ensure that *a*
    response is posted, *several* (or a slew) get posted instead. I think
    it's kind of a corrolary to the theory that it's better to let 100
    guilty people go free than to put one innocent person to death.
    Better to flood the bandwidth with these cautions than to have people
    think what's put forth here is sanctioned and proven.

    The lurkers *have* the benefit of the kill-file technique. The kindly
    professionals on this Newsgroup--if they were *not* kindly
    professionals--could use the same technique. Unfortunately, most of
    them are aware that this would sacrifice many people to the wolves.
    You've learned what you've learned. Somebody has to protect the
    regular flow of new visitors, newly diagnosed with an issue, that seek
    information grounded in science. As great an idea as I think it is, I
    don't believe that the weekly s.m.v. disclaimer goes far enough.

    I'd be more than happy to take a shift. Everybody has certainly seen
    the boilerplate response I've developed. If anybody would like to
    suggest changes, we can make changes. I'll catch as many as I can as
    often as I can.

    Any ideas--from Ken or others?
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 8, 2005
    #4
  5. Ken

    RM Guest

    I agree with you Ken. Otis gets under my skin because despite the time and
    effort, and the references and explanations, he is unable to think beyond
    his simple-minded prevention scheme. Good people like LarryDoc and you
    might get scared away from this newsgroup. Also, trolls like Rishi,
    heynita, and andrew Judd might come in and start to take over.

    I agree-- we should all post a disclaimer whenever Otis starts his posting.
    In my opionion it should state that Otis is not an expert or a doctor, it
    should point people to places where real scientific information can be found
    about the subject of myopia prevention, and it should give instructions to
    people on how to kill-file Otis so we can side-step this mania.

    Other viewpoints people?

    Thanks for posting Ken.
     
    RM, Mar 8, 2005
    #5
  6. Ken

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Again, good points.

    You could also ask LarryDoc, et al whether they left because of the
    *rebuttals* or because of the *posts* themselves.

    If you elicited from the docs who left this ng that it was the
    rebuttals, in whole or in large part, that fomented their departure,
    I'd be the first to abandon the cause.

    I'm not sure that's what they're going to say, though. I'd guess that
    those who left left because they saw s.m.v. becoming an infomercial.

    Just my $0.02
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 8, 2005
    #6
  7. Ken

    LarryDoc Guest


    Well, Joe . . . again, while I take your point, your facts are a bit
    off. Here, look at this: http://snipurl.com/dbam

    Larry Bickford--while I have sincere respect for him, and have told
    him that before--was *remarkably* prolific at engaging the troll, and
    for quite a long while.

    So, it rings just a touch hollow when you're touting Larry as the guy
    who "clearly left because of all the rebuttals."[/QUOTE]

    You're wrong, Neil. Why don't YOU look at that URL and see that out of
    126 with me as author, there is but one post to a troll.

    Not only was I not "prolific", but I did not engage any of the trolls. I
    may have, once or twice replied to lies and misquotes of my stuff (as I
    am doing now), but never "engaged" them because obviously that doesn't
    do a damn bit of good. I may have posted the percentage of postings
    attributed to them and their BS, but that's all. I tried to convince
    others to ignore them and clearly I was not successful. I tried to help
    this group get back to its charter and clearly, I was not successful.

    I was here to provide scientifically and medically supportable vision
    care information. Nothing more, nothing less. Even kill-filing does not
    allow for this group to be a useful place for discussion, not when the
    vast majority of discussion is about those who are degrading this place.

    So that means that, right now, I'm contributing to the problem. I
    apologize. I will, from time to time cruise by and see if this forum is
    fixed and maybe reply to posts where my name is used inappropriately.
    This, as an example. Other than that, I'm gone.

    --Larry
     
    LarryDoc, Mar 9, 2005
    #7
  8. Ken

    Neil Brooks Guest

    You're wrong, Neil. Why don't YOU look at that URL and see that out of
    126 with me as author, there is but one post to a troll.

    Not only was I not "prolific", but I did not engage any of the trolls. I
    may have, once or twice replied to lies and misquotes of my stuff (as I
    am doing now), but never "engaged" them because obviously that doesn't
    do a damn bit of good. I may have posted the percentage of postings
    attributed to them and their BS, but that's all. I tried to convince
    others to ignore them and clearly I was not successful. I tried to help
    this group get back to its charter and clearly, I was not successful.

    I was here to provide scientifically and medically supportable vision
    care information. Nothing more, nothing less. Even kill-filing does not
    allow for this group to be a useful place for discussion, not when the
    vast majority of discussion is about those who are degrading this place.

    So that means that, right now, I'm contributing to the problem. I
    apologize. I will, from time to time cruise by and see if this forum is
    fixed and maybe reply to posts where my name is used inappropriately.
    This, as an example. Other than that, I'm gone.

    --Larry[/QUOTE]

    Actually, I see quite a few replies on that link I gave where you're
    just going at it with, or about, Otis (or Rishi) . . . as so many of
    us have, unfortunately to no avail. Happily, they're mixed in there
    with scores of exceptionally helpful, kind, and well-thought posts.

    I have no interest in disparaging you, Larry. My respect for you
    stands. If you choose to leave this newsgroup, the newsgroup will
    have lost.

    Let me get your opinion, and I seek it sincerely:

    Is it safe . . . better . . . preferable to simply leave these people
    unanswered? I'm curious.

    I mean, you had the option not only to kill-file posters, but to mark
    threads as ignore. With that option, even if replies from "safe"
    posters came in to an objectionable thread, you wouldn't have to deal
    with them. Of course it takes more time, but as the Internet
    proliferates, the incidence of all sorts of objectionable crap
    increases proportionally.

    So what do you think is the answer. When outrageous statements are
    made, even passers-by are likely to engage....

    Neil
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 9, 2005
    #8
  9. Ken

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Eh, never mind. I may be a part of the problem. I think I'll take a
    little break myself.....
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 9, 2005
    #9
  10. Ken

    Guest Guest

    You have to realize that this very usefull posting by "The Real Bev'' is not
    seen by newbies because Bev post this message in an old thread an not as a
    new posting.
    At least this is the case in my newsreader (Outlook)

    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Mar 9, 2005
    #10
  11. Ken

    The Real Bev Guest

    Perhaps Outlook just threads by subject rather than by reference; I will
    change the subject slightly each time from now on. Due to interesting
    problems among my newsfeeds, I write each one as a new message, type in
    the subject and then cut and paste the text from the previous weed's
    offering, so it shouldn't really be threaded. Mobody ever said that
    Outlook was a GOOD newsreader :-(
    Me too.
    When I saw 'Soldier of Orange' I was amazed that Dutch sounds exactly
    like English except with different words.

    --
    Cheers, Bev
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
    our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
    --Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.
     
    The Real Bev, Mar 10, 2005
    #11
  12. Ken

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Bev and Jan,

    Off-topic.

    Since Jan is Dutch, maybe he can confirm this story of the
    Germans during WWII, and the Dutch under-ground.

    To evade the NAZIS, the Dutch found the name of
    a town that the Germans could not pronounce.

    I think is was "Snavling" or something like that.
    Maybe Jan knows. I am just curious if he
    knows his history.

    This is a tribute to the brave Dutch during
    WWII.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 10, 2005
    #12
  13. Ken

    g.gatti Guest

    Please Stella, the noise is the medicine that does not work.

    Can't you see?

    All NEWBIES come here to complain for their difficulties, expecially
    with spectacles and ods and opticians.

    What to do?

    It is their fault,, they are not able to cure people, they act
    unscientifically!

    What to do?
     
    g.gatti, Mar 10, 2005
    #13
  14. Ken

    Guest Guest

    How kind you are Bev , the foreigners who are visiting my beautiful country
    often said it sounds like a barking dogs.

    BTW, your new welcome message arrived on the right place this time in top of
    the messages and not in the thread as it did before.
     
    Guest, Mar 10, 2005
    #14
  15. Ken

    The Real Bev Guest

    Interesting. Perhaps to some foreigners EVERYBODY sounds like a barking
    dog. It also might explain why two different Frenchmen 20 years apart
    thought I spoke French like a Dutchman.
    OK, just adding the number was good enough. Not difficult at all.
     
    The Real Bev, Mar 10, 2005
    #15
  16. Ken

    Casey Guest

    Neil Brooks said
    From the viewpoint of someone that just looked in here today after
    asking advice a year or so ago, it takes about 5 minutes to figure out
    who to ignore. Most newsgroups have this problem and there is no real
    solution, but ignoring the the Otis's of the world is probably the most
    practical approach.

    It's the long back and forth pointless arguments that tend to overwhelm
    the useful posts.



    Casey
     
    Casey, Mar 16, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.